User talk:Hazard-SJ/Archive 7

Orphaned non-free media (File:O'conor don.jpg)
Hello. I believe this image is fair use. There are fair use justifications already on its page. I don't understand what to do can you tell me what I need to do to get this image kept.Aetheling1125 04:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's not used on any articles then it's "orphaned," and so it will be deleted if not used in an article. From one of the messages on the file, it says there's no evidence of permission that this file can be used here.  You need to show that there's evidence or the file will be deleted.  Hope this helps, Comp dude 123 04:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikivoyage
I find that your bot is switching over Wikitravel links to Wikivoyage links but they are not showing on the top page. Please see Surul or Birbhum district. I doubt if things are in order. Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would have been as a result of [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?diff=523132617 this edit] to the template (see the template's talk page).  Hazard-SJ  ✈   15:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So why is this edit still not working? i tried a couple of things, wondering if i could fix it. This is definitely beyond me.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please re-read my message above. The "fixing" has to be done directly to the template page whenever there is consensus to do so.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   23:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks, you're welcome, and the same to you. (It's my bot that does this, actually.)  Hazard-SJ  ✈   04:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hazard-Bot re-tagging non-free images as orphaned when called via templates
Hazard-Bot recently tagged File:Recovery operations in Samut Prakan radiation accident.jpg as an orphaned non-free image. The image was being called via Template:Infobox news event in the Samut Prakan radiation accident article. However, an edit to the template resulted in the template breaking and not displaying the image. I fixed the template and removed the tag from the image page at 17:36, 15 December 2012‎ (UTC) but the bot reinstated the tag at 04:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC). At the time of the second tagging, the image should have been in the article (there has been a further edit to the template, but I purged the article page to check and the image is still there), but the file description page doesn't show it as such, nor does the "What links here" special page. Not sure if this is a server caching issue / MediaWiki limitation, etc. or simply an error on my part. It is resulting in seemingly undesired bot behaviour, though. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I just checked and saw it listed as a file link, so I expect it should be okay now.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   19:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


 TheGeneralUser  (talk)  is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Hello Hazard-SJ! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :)  TheGeneralUser  (talk)  14:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, TheGeneralUser! Merry Christmas to you to.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   18:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Office 2013 screenshots deletion
I have been notified that the following files that I uploaded is against copyright rules:

File:Microsoft Word_2013 Start Screen.png File:Microsoft Word_2013 Default Screen.png File:Microsoft Excel_2013 Start Screen.png File:Microsoft Excel_2013 Default Screen.png File:Microsoft PowerPoint 2013 Start Screen.png File:Microsoft PowerPoint 2013 Default Screen.png File:Microsoft OneNote 2013 Start Screen.png File:Microsoft OneNote 2013 Default Screen.png

I hereby preparing those files to make them usable on Microsoft Office and/or Microsoft Office 2013, as I am still consulting with Codename Lisa (talk), as you can see in her talk page. May I request additional time to discuss the best way to make those images fit on those two articles?

Thank you.

Malikussaid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malikussaid (talk • contribs) 08:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If they are under discussion, I guess it would be okay for you to remove the tags from the files and use or nobots on the files, just add a note saying why, and remove them after the issue has been resolved.   Hazard-SJ  ✈   21:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!
I'm actually new to this, so thanks for the heads up. I added the picture to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_al-Bayt_University and so my question is will it be deleted now? thank you for helping :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arch ssm (talk • contribs) 11:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Bot requests
Hi. Any chance of an update at User:Hazard-Bot/Requests soon? It's been "request on hold" for a while now. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop messages for self-tagged images?
I don't want to shut off messages from the bot entirely, but is it possible for the bot not to send out messages about files to be deleted when the editor him/herself has tagged the files for deletion? I uploaded some .png files to replace some .jpg ones, and tagged the old .jpg files for deletion. The bot "informed" me of this, even though I was the one who tagged them. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, I believe I get your intention, but ... here goes: you used deletable image-caption, which, according to the template's documentation, should be used on articles, not the file description pages. Basically, that doesn't count as requesting deletion. See WP:CSD for tagging files for deletion. In such a case, when tagged appropriately for deletion, I'd like to assume the file(s) would be deleted before the bot tags, and either way, if the deletion requested was invalid, the bot-tagged version would still likely take effect. If you like, you could opt out of being notified, however.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   21:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks, & sorry about that! Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem, you're welcome {  Hazard-SJ  ✈   02:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Comp dude 123 02:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

speedy image nominations
I can imagine adding several deletion notifications to the talk page is a bit disturbing (see e.g. /User talk:Prillen), and maybe unnecessary given that they stem from removal from in a single move... Any chance the algorithm can be tweaked to allow more a single notification? L.tak (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The only way to avoid multiple notifications like that, as far as I'm aware, would include delaying the notification of users until all files that the bot has to go through have been tagged, then sorting them as such (the template might even need some modifications). However, that would be a bit risky, in my opinion. Also, the user may remove the notifications and/or opt out from notifications as well.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   05:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

RE. File:LHO14.jpg Image is color mugshot of Lee Harvey Oswald. Booking photo is non copyrighted. Photo is of historical importance and is irreplaceable Image has been on Lee Harvey Oswald page since 2006. Mytwocents (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

bot took down images from my sandbox--they weren't orphans
Hi Hazard-SJ: Quick question regarding your orphan image scrubbing bot. I was experimenting with formats for image display and learning how to upload and link to an image in Wikimedia Commons via my sandbox. The bot sent me a notification and took down/hid the image in my sandbox article. Is there any way to tweak the bot's algorithm to avoid this--the purpose of the sandbox is for users to learn and refine before trying to put new information up in the public space. In this case, my images weren't "orphaned," they just hadn't reached their intended destination on the public pages yet. Thanks very much for your kind consideration.Jennifer Sereno 20:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Jennifer Sereno  17:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Jennifer Sereno  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifer Sereno (talk • contribs)


 * Hello, my bot doesn't remove orphaned files; it notifies the uploaders of the specific files and tags the files for deletion. The removal was, however, done in [//en.wikipedia.org/?diff=536758443 this edit] by VernoWhitney, an administrator here. This was because, per the file description page and WP:NFCC, it could be considered a copyright violation. Thanks for your understanding.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   01:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The images on The Reverend Peyton's Big Damn Band
Any human reading the article can plainly see that the images have clear and extensive Fair Use rationals. Please put a leash on your bot! K8 fan (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I removed those files, as their usage violates our non-free content policy. Werieth (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Www.testwikiorg.tk
Please give me project manager flag if you can. I am constantly visiting the project and there is no one. Greeting! --Kolega2357 (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅, although you haven't been making any changes there, but due to some considerations.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   03:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

WP Haiti
I've been finding a lot of Haitian geography articles that either have no WP banner, or WikiProject Caribbean without the Haiti subproject flagged. Could your bot run through Category:Haiti making sure they're all marked as in WP Haiti so some assessment work could happen? &mdash; Laura Scudder | talk 15:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I started the bot.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   03:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use images
Hi. Is there something wrong with the bot's orphaned fair use task? I noticed that the dated categories under Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files for the last three days are basically empty. Thanks. --B (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, Hazard-SJ told the bot to add the orphan template to files in this database report. The report is supposed to be updated daily, but for some reason, it hasn't been updated for a few days. I think that you need to dig up whoever is responsible for the database report instead of asking the bot operator. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it uses that database report. It seems to have been updated recently again, though, so hopefully things are sorted out now.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   03:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Armbrust The Homunculus 23:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Please respond ASAP. Comp dude 123 03:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Resopnded.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   02:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Excessive cleaning of template sandbox pages
Hazard-Bot reset a template page only one hour after its previous reset, here. As you can see, I was working on a series of edits at the time. The template page is supposed to be reset every 12 hours. Axl ¤  [Talk]  13:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Currently as it is set, it actually only resets based on certain criteria. The bot that cleans it runs hourly, but some of the criteria include ensuring it does not clean if the edit was a sandbot's edit. It also checks to ensure there was no edit in the last 5 minutes. However, I just increased that to be 10 minutes, as I agree, 5 might be too little. However, AFAIK, every 12 hours is only listed as one of the older bots only did it at that frequency (and AvicBot2 keeps overwriting my bot's reset to include that). However, if you still have problems, such as if you think at least ten minutes is still insufficient between an edit and a reset, please feel free mention them.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   21:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't see any value in running the bot every hour. Would you consider changing the bot to run every 12 hours? Or at least not edit the same sandbox page every hour? Axl  ¤  [Talk]  22:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The thing is, I had three separate sandbot codes at some point, but I merged two of them and added additional features. Therefore, all the sandboxes it cleans, including the main sandbox, are cleaned from that code. The other code, on the other hand, would be the code for inserting the sandbox header when it has been removed. The next thing is, even if I use every 12 hours, with ~2 sandbots running, it would most likely still coincide, making it not be 12 hours between resets.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   22:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about the encoding of bots, and I don't see how the first three sentences are relevant. (It probably isn't worth your while trying to explain it to me.) Even if the bot(s) aren't resetting the sandboxes exactly every 12 hours, I am sure that it would be less frequent than every hour. A reset every hour is too frequent. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  22:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

File:ATSF box logo blue.jpg
Hi Hazard-SJ. Please see the history for File:ATSF box logo blue.jpg. Hazard-Bot is repeatedly tagging it for fair use deletion, even though it is tagged with PD-Textlogo. --B (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed now, but just in case it doesn't work, you can use bots on the page.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   02:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
I answered your question. Comp dude 123 16:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Adaption Request
Hi Hazard-SJ i saw that you are currently open for a Wikipedian adaption, I just want to ask if you're willing to adapt me? I not actually new to Wikipedia, I already edited and create articles for the community but I'm still having difficulties when it comes to references. I hope you can help or give some tips on how to effectively find references. Thank you. You can reach me on my talkpage. vhincze 10:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC


 * Hello, I could help you out. However, just so you're aware, I'm sort of busy in real life (the major cause for my few recent edits), so I hope that won't be too much of a problem. For now, I'll send you to Citing sources, where you could look for what specifically you need, or, if you're still having problems, you could explain your problem to me and I'll help out however I can.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   01:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hazard-bot false positive
For some reason, Hazard bot tagged File:Tsquarealbum.jpg as orphaned fair-use even though the image has never been orphaned. Any idea what made it do that? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just checked, and it seems to be orphaned. Check the "File usage" section of the page, or even (the API). As a result, I've undone your edit.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   22:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thompson Square (album) is clearly using the image. It's because the "T" wasn't capitalized in the |cover= field in the infobox, causing it not to show up on the "What Links Here" page. Changing to a capital T fixed the problem. This seems like an easy-to-fix bug you should check into. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki wasnt registering the usage, its a known rare bug that pops up on occasion, a null edit to the article will resolve it. Werieth (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a quite strange bug, I agree. I hope it was already reported in bugzilla. However, if a null edit to the article resolves it (does it always resolve it?), would you agree with null editing the article and rechecking if it is indeed orphanned before tagging?  Hazard-SJ  ✈   03:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Its not something a bot can really fix or identify. Until the link tables associated with the article where the image is used are updated mediawiki sees the file as orphaned even though it is in use. Werieth (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a null edit that fixed it. Changing the first letter of the image name from lowercase to uppercase in the Infobox album did. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually that wasnt the problem, but did the same thing as a null edit, take a look, I just reverted the case change and the issue did not re-appear. Werieth (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, all non-free images should have a valid fair use rationale, and a valid fair use rationale should contain the title of the article using the image (or the title of a redirect to the article). A null edit to the article title in the fair use rationale should fix it. If it's easier, just make a null edit to all articles to which the file information page links. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Would a purge with the forcelinkupdate parameter fix it? I'm not sure and I have nothing to test this on.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   01:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Confusion Regarding Our Logo
Hazard-SJ: I'm not sure what we did wrong in uploading our logo (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Passelstine for original message). Our page is the Society of Graduate and Professional Students at Queen's University. Can you please clarify? Passelstine (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Passelstine
 * Hello, it might be better to contact the deleting administrator here, but the message my bot left you is probably sufficient explanation. Basically, the file was non-free, and it was orphaned (or unused), and under one of our policies, we do not keep such files. Unused non-free files are usually deleted, as is the case here.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   01:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, H the image referred to as "orphan' image is used in the Article as 'Letter of Montagu William Douglas to J.D. Shams in London on the 29th of July 1939. The letter has been referred to in the Article: as Reference 4.^ A Letter dated 29th July 1939 to J D Shams, [2].

The letter has been received from lawful owners of the Ahmadiyya Head Quarters in Rabwah Pakistan. Thank you.ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

HazardBot false positive
HazardBot has added template:di-orphaned fair use to File:The-tsarnaev-suspects-fbi-photo-release.jpg, even though a public domain reason for retaining the image has been added and the template was removed per its instruction to "Please remove this template if a reason for keeping this image has been provided". 24.151.50.173 (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That image has not be released under a free license. Werieth (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The stated reason is that it is public domain because it is ineligible for copyright. See discussion at 24.151.50.173 (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The lack of original copyright has not be clarified. Thus the statement that the file is not copyrighted cannot be validated. Until proven otherwise we assume that it is copyrighted. In this case that means the file is non-free. Werieth (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My initial statement here was not to argue that the question has been settled, merely to state that a template saying that an image is "allowed only under a claim of fair use" where a public domain claim is also present is incorrect. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * However it is also tagged as non-free, The non-free tag supersedes the free tag making the bot tag valid. Werieth (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That hierarchy, if not the grammar of the tag, makes sense to me, thanks. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the fact that files should not be dual tagged this is a rare issue. Werieth (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)