User talk:JasonCarswell/Archive 03

InterPlanetary File System

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

MER-C 09:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

File:City Of Windsor 1992 Proposed Crest.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:City Of Windsor 1992 Proposed Badge.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:City Of Windsor 1992 Proposed Badge.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Also:

• File:City Of Windsor 1992 Proposed Crest.jpg
• File:City Of Windsor 1992 Proposed Flag.jpg

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:WebTorrent 68747470733a2f2f776562746f7272656e742e696f2f696d672f576562546f7272656e742e706e67.png

Thanks for uploading File:WebTorrent 68747470733a2f2f776562746f7272656e742e696f2f696d672f576562546f7272656e742e706e67.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 20:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Filecoin-logo.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Filecoin-logo.svg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 17:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Filecoin-logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Filecoin-logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Open-source

Hello. I see that you have changed the target of redirects Open-source and Open source. Please can you help us to fix the resulting mis-directed links? The disambiguation page Open source (disambiguation) now has 4,573 bad incoming links (which is as many as the other 295,000 disambiguation pages have in total). I've fixed about 500 of them with template edits but we're going to need some help here! Thanks, Certes (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Now down to 4,277. That's several editor-days work. The move also created a WP:MALPLACED error. Narky Blert (talk) 10:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Certes and Narky Blert: Hi. I hope it was the best thing to do. I wasn't sure but I really think it is and figured if ever there was a time to "be bold", this was it. I'm happy to help but my experience is limited. Is there a script/addon/app for such a thing? I apologize for creating a mess but my intentions are good. I am committed to fixing every bad link, even if it takes a days. I'm having trouble finding the "what links here" thing. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, found it. More persistence paid off. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Pages that link to "Open source"
• Pages that link to "Open-source"

Is there a place to submit requests for bots to do specific tasks like these? This seems like something they might do best. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I asked about bot stuff at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Open-source. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. A bot could help but only if we can give it an algorithm for deciding the new destination of each link. My tool of choice when many pages link to one dab is WP:DisamAssist. DabLinks can also do the job but is better suited to the opposite case where one page links to many dabs. Certes (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Certes and Narky Blert: It occurs to me that I may be doing work that is only half way so I've stopped until I get feedback. My edits between my first note above (12:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)) and whatever this time stamp is may need addressing to.

To my point, I'd been simply find/replacing "open source" and "open-source" to [[open source (disambiguation)|open source]]. (I don't think I missed capitals starting sentences.) That may be a patch/band aid for the redirect issue, but it might really be better to actually read the context to specifically insert a better pipe to these top three uses: "open-source licence", "open-source model", and "open-source software".

I wrote the above while you were posting your note. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

As you say, it's better to find a more specific article, e.g. divert Foo is an open source goat simulator to Open-source software. Open source (disambiguation) isn't usually the best destination. Certes (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Peter Flass: Also, who is "Aqw31Qh3" and why are the messing up the Open source (disambiguation) page throughout its recent history? More importantly I also added some other page specific comments to Talk:Open source (disambiguation) and would appreciate feedback, comments, endorsements and/or criticisms. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Aqw31Qh3 was blocked indefinitely on 30 October. However, this edit suggests that they may still be active. Certes (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Certes:Those edits don't even make sense for a vandal. Looks like a virus bot on a rampage of insanity.

Any chance you can tell my how your process and how you go about fixing the "open source" issue? I stopped what I only started to do and I feel like there must be a better way. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Vandals don't follow rules! It looks like an attempt at publicity for, er, something.

I'm using DisamAssist and deciding the link mainly on the type of thing being discussed. Usually they're in phrases like "X is an open-source Y" and the link depends on whether Y is a type of (or synonym for) software, licence or movement. If none of the above then I check the less common meanings and, if in doubt, default to open-source model, though that is mainly about software. Certes (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Certes: Thanks Certes, I think the DisamAssist might be what I'm looking for. I found it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation#How to help with some other potentially neat tools. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Certes: In added the DisamAssist line to my User:JasonCarswell/common.js but I can't seem to use it or even find it under the "More" section. Any hints or tips? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Certes: Also, I'm retracing my earlier disambiguation edits to better direct them but I'm finding many of them are changed. I think we are overlapping. What's the best solution? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I've made a start using DisamAssist. The order in which it presents pages looks random but is probably the same for everyone (e.g. oldest first). That does tend to make us trip over each other. In particular I'll have been shown the pages you already changed to add " (disambiguation)", though not those you changed to some other link. I skipped or wasn't shown 11 of them: list. Do you want to carry on from here while I do something else for a while? Certes (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Certes: Thanks for promptly replying. I have a bunch of things...

• I don't know why my DisamAssist isn't working. Everything I've done thus far is manual. I hope there's a better way.
• I was only trying to go back through those I'd already half-changed to fix them properly. But I have a new idea...
• There are two pages of lists, you can take the first with dash and I'll take the second without dash:

• Pages that link to "Open-source"
• Pages that link to "Open source"

• I'm guessing you were editing the disamb articles (some of which I'd "fixed") randomly rather than going through my history. If you were going through my history, that's fine but I'd like to know so I don't do it over to catch the ones I missed. Or maybe I should just skip it as they're mostly disamb and we should catch them anyways. Whadyu think?
• Someone moved Open source (disambiguation) to Open source which seems good, however...

• I don't know if or how that might affect our "mission".
• I don't know if the Open-source (with dash) and other related things are redirected or need addressing.

• I was going to add a thing to the disambiguation page and somewhere along the line the context of a specific line was utterly distorted and placed out of context. I mention this only because you had part in adjusting it. This is the proper context:

• Free and open-source software, or (FOSS) or (FLOSS), is Free/Libre referring to freedom not the price

"Free and open" should not to be confused with "public ownership" (state ownership), "deprivatization" (nationalization), nor anti-privatization.

Granted the "anti-privatization" should be "anti-privatization", but someone moved it up to "Software, Not to be confused with state ownership or nationalization." which makes no sense at all. While out of character for a disamb page, it is a critical distinction that needs to be present on this disamb. So I've reverted and tweaked it with a note, but I'm open to feedback if you object.

• Let me know if there's anything else I missed or should or can do to help.
• I don't know why my DisamAssist isn't working. (Repeated in case you forget.) Thanks. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

DisamAssist saves loads of time and it's worth trying to fix. Your common.js looks right. Do you have a "More" tabs next to Read - Edit - View History at the top of the page? If so then (on a disambiguation page) select More → Disambiguate links. (Ignore Page → Tools → Disambiguate links, if you have that: it's DabLinks, which is a great tool for a different job.) If that doesn't work then please let me know which bit is missing.

I can take the with-dash links. DisamAssist will put up both but I can skip those without a dash.

I was editing articles suggested by DisamAssist. I didn't go through your history, as I was trying (unsuccessfully) to avoid duplicating your work.

Yes, moving Open source (disambiguation) to Open source is good per WP:MALPLACED. The only effect on our "mission" is that we can no longer use DisamAssist to fix links to Open source (disambiguation). There are only 11 of those, and some may well be correct. Would you like to look at the 11 first, as DisamAssist won't help us there?

A bot has fixed redirects such as Open-source to point directly to Open source (rather than to Open source (disambiguation), which is now itself a redirect).

Yes, the bit about FOSS no longer makes sense. Maybe it should be in a {{confuse}} hatnote. On the other hand, it's fairly obvious that "free and open source" means open source (in some sense defined on the dab) plus free (in some sense), and it's not really Open source's job to distinguish free speech from free beer.

Hope that helps, Certes (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Certes: I was about to write you when I found you'd already written. So I accidentally found the DisamAssist. I was finessing the Open source page and glimpsed in a hover over the "More" tab. I feel stupid. Of course you put a DisamAssist on the disambiguation pages. I was looking for it on pages from those 2 lists I linked above. So now I can see why I came at it all from the wrong direction. As far as the dash or no dash, forget it all. So sorry for wasting your time. Thanks for the trouble of writing all that. I can handle the 11.

I guess I've got to explore these other tools too.

Your comments made me reassess and I feel I've fixed the FOSS but I'm open to further discussion if you think it can be improved.

I think as far as disambiguation goes, I agree that concise clarity is key, but so does removing confusion and this is terribly misunderstood by most folks.

I also feel I've fixed an issue with "As software" and "In agriculture..." that someone else changed, and I made my argument in a code note why if anyone considers changing it. ~ JasonCarswell (talk)

@Certes: I don't think DisamAssist is working correctly. I've tried several times to edit a dozen or two then when I close it said, every time, that it was saving only 2 edits. WTF? Also, I'd done the same ones several times.

Also, after going through these I'm finding that the context doesn't really matter much and that most of them are to software, occasionally license, rarely model, and little or none others, while more often than those last two I find myself going in to extend the "open source" to also include the word following it, like software or license.

I can't tell if my sudden lack of enthusiasm is because I hit a wall and need a nap or if this moot disambiguation problem is legit. Initially I felt partly responsible for breaking links or whatever, but now I think it's just inherent ambiguous usage of the term that everyone already uses non-specifically that I've accidentally unveiled with the wiki machine.

I feel bad for promising the world, but now I think the world won't care if I don't correct it's grammar. For whatever it's worth, I'm still sympathetic to the disambiguation warriors correcting this issue. ~ JasonCarswell (talk)

Also, I'll get to the more than 11 tomorrow. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Your contributions show dozens of successful fixes using DisamAssist. The way it works is a bit unusual: it saves edits automatically but buffers the last two so you can Undo them. When you finish and click Close, it saves the last two; the others have already been saved. (There's also a limit of one save per 5 seconds so, if you click fast, a queue of more than two can form.) If you stop and restart later, any pages you've skipped will be presented again before moving on to the later ones that you've not seen yet. You shouldn't see pages you fixed again, but you will see pages you decided not to fix.

An alternative is to reformat Open source as a broad concept article, in which case links could continue to point there. Even if we go down that route, we're still improving Wikipedia by, for example, linking a statement like "MediaWiki is open source" to the specific article on open-source software rather than to one about open source in general. Certes (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Certes: Thanks for the info. It seems to me that the DisamAssist should have a little User Manual or further description. I quoted us at User talk:Qwertyytrewqqwerty/DisamAssist#Mini Usage Guide?. I hope you don't mind. Most of my DisamAssist edits I gave a triple check just to be sure because I'd rather be correct with less than mostly correct with more, but some were obvious and quick. And I skipped a bunch because I couldn't tell. The 5 second rule makes sense but it is limiting. I didn't like seeing the ones I'd passed on again.

I read that broad concept thing and it sounds perfect, I think. I have a few ideas...

• If I'm not mistaken, it would retain its disambiguation-ness - and tag?
• Is there something else (ie. tag, notice, declaration, etc) that needs to be done to be a "Broad-concept article"? Or just on the talk page?
• We don't really need to change the page/list, though brief summary paragraphs may be added to each section, and of course the 3(4) main usages (license, model, software, and FOSS).
• I'd get a kick if Open source were added to Wikipedia:Broad-concept article#Common examples. If I were to add it it might attract constructive assistance, or (in my opinion) butcher editing - of which I'm always afraid - editors with their rigged rules and stuff claiming to "simplify" when they're censoring and deleting information down to stubs (meanwhile Evel Knievel's page is book length because it's not important). I've decided to propose it under Wikipedia talk:Broad-concept article#Examples.

~ JasonCarswell (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Broad concept articles are not disambiguation pages. A BCA is about one (broad) topic, whereas a dab lists topics which may be unrelated except for the name clash (Mercury (planet), Mercury (element), Mercury (mythology), …). Links to BCAs don't show up on the "links to dabs" reports, which is a double-edged sword: we don't feel obliged to fix them, but such links might be better directed to a subtopic.

A BCA is an article, so the page should be rewritten as prose rather than lists and become subject to the usual requirements such as sourcing. It would lose the disambiguation tag. We could give the talk page tags like {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} from Talk:Open-source model. But I'm a WikiGnome rather than an article writer.

We should probably summarize these thoughts on Talk:Open source and inform relevant projects such as WT:WikiProject Open and WT:WikiProject Disambiguation to get a wider audience before boldly changing anything.

Other opinions are available. Hope that helps, Certes (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Certes: So I went back and tried to discover how I got reversed, or rather thought it was more of an expanded disamb, but I can't nail it down where. I'm not the only one as others are also confused in the Wikipedia talk:Broad-concept article. It might have been the "A disambiguation page should not be created just because it is difficult to write an article on a topic that is broad, vague, abstract, or highly conceptual." This time I took a look at the format of the examples and get a better idea.

I am all for expanding it to a BCA as long as it doesn't loose the majority of the collected information there now.

Also, I won't be able to do it with any speed (could take a month or even more for it to even out and calm to a din), though I expect others might help.

And as a BCA I'm guessing it would relieve the alarms about disamb links.

I'm going to archive this conversation in my User archives and copy it to Talk:Open source as I believe you had the good idea to do so (as I'd been thinking about for a while but I'd already pointed other places to here). If this move is a mistake please forgive me and I'll undo it. I'll try to address the summaries from there after this move.

I've enjoyed our conversations and greatly appreciate your help and knowledgeable experience. I hope to grow up to be a WikiGnome like you. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)