User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Archive12

BorgiaGandia.png

I am presently unable to rectify the tagging problem for this, since I am topic banned from working on schools. I would appreciate if you would upload this as a non-free logo for me, I've done hundreds of these but clearly here made a mistake. That's at Francis Borgia College, Gandia. Thanks, Jzsj (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Cover of Tikki Tikki Tembo by Arlene Mosel.jpg

Not clear why you added {{di-orphaned fair use}} tag as "The following pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file...: Tikki Tikki Tembo." User 172.96.30.163 had (probably unintentionally) deleted the article's link to the image on 16:00, 10 June 2018. Therefore, deleted the tag. RichardKPSun (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I converted the template to be a link rather than actually displaying...we're not trying to delete this here user talk page, just discuss the tagging of some other page.

{{tps}} Seems you know exactly why the image was tagged: it was actually not in use at that time because the changes to the article had removed the link. The article got fixed, but it takes manual intervention to recognize that the image needed to be detagged. DMacks (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Considering Leaving

Owing to the some objectionable changes in Global copyright policy, which would require fundamental changes in the way many websites operate including Wikimedia projects, I am considering leaving Wikipedia, and upon that departure if it happens terminating any licenses for separable content I've been able to contribute. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Woah, I must have been really annoyed with something when I wrote that. Strike out time. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and I've been advised that CC-BY-SA isn't revocable in any event, which I am fine with. I don't mind sharing at all, it's certain others that don't it seems. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Leave now, your contributions have been problematic as of late. You've been placing false deletion on logo's that clearly are used on articles. If you cannot adhere to a collaborative mindset then you're not required here. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Who are these "certain other users" then? speaking passive aggressively is the opposite of collaboration. Wikipedia isn't your playground to make whatever edits you want to kill time, it's made to collate articles, sources and assets in a presentable manner. A lot of those logo's that you made false deletion claims for were still present in articles. Imagine the damage that could have been caused if I had not intervened. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The certain others you'll be glad to know are not on "Wikipedia", and I'd be very interested to know which logos you thought were incorrectly tagged against the CSD used. I am always prepared to review is there's a concern. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Iftekharahmed96: You talk about Wikipedia being a collaborative project yet open your conversation with ShakespeareFan00 with the disgraceful suggestion "Leave now". That's completely out of order and if I see you posting a message like that ever again, you'll be leaving and it'll be at the end of my block button. I'm interested in what logos you think were incorrectly tagged, but can I remind you, if a file isn't used for whatever reason, when any editor (ShakespeareFan00, me, anybody else) comes along and sees the file sitting unused and orphaned, we will tag it for deletion. I see from looking at your talk page, you're having long standing difficulties with image copyright, maybe it's an area you should cease working in for a few months until you better understand our policies. Nick (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Nick, why are you getting involved with this discussion? For someone who's enforcing collaboration, threatening me is the opposite of that. You think I'm rude? trust me, there's far more blunt moderators on this website. Shakespeare considered leaving and I enforced that decision. It's not out of order to give a user that option, Wikipedia is clearly not for everybody. Shakespeare modified logos that are currently being used in articles. As oppose to giving them the correct logo template, he falsely places deletion tags. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 11:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm getting involved because I'm an administrator. If you want blunt, you've certainly come to the right person. I've asked you once, I should not have to ask you again, name the logos that were in use when ShakespeareFan00 edited them. Nick (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

As an administrator, you're not being very friendly and collaborative with your contribution to this discussion thus far. Stop with the threatening attitude, me and Shakespeare have come to an agreement. The problems been sorted. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Iftekharahmed96: I think you need to re-calibrate your expectations on what to expect when you're being given a bollocking for telling another editor to "Leave now". I've had a look through your contributions and immediately I see a potential problem. Why have you replaced a low resolution file which is compliant with our fair use policies with a higher resolution file which isn't (File:Capcom Vancouver logo.png → File:Capcom Vancouver.png) ? You've also orphaned the first logo in the process but have failed to tag it for deletion. The lack of tagging a superseded file for deletion is something which is not at all helpful, as it creates work for editors like ShakespeareFan00, who in turn receive unacceptable abuse from editors like you whilst trying to tidy up the mess editors like you leave behind. Nick (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

C'mon Nick, why are you trying to get the last word here? the initial disagreements been sorted out, and I have every right to tell a Wikipedia user to leave if they are considering leaving, I did nothing wrong. You, on the other hand, are getting involved in a conversation that has nothing to do with you far more personally than a moderator should by threatening me with a block (and why in the world is a moderator using the term bollocking? that's not friendly language). The Capcom Vancouver logo has nothing to do with this conversation so I am in no obligation to comment on that. Matter of fact, for you to bring that up shows that you are eyeing on my contribution out of spite. This conversation is over, there's nothing more that needs to be said. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 06:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Iftekharahmed96: I have every right to tell a Wikipedia user to leave if they are considering leaving - NO, you absolutely do not have the right to tell any user on this project to leave, none whatsoever. It's bullying and it's something we have a zero tolerance for here on Wikipedia. That's final, you're wrong, and that's an end to it. I've reviewed your contributions to this project because you appear to have some deficiencies when it comes to understanding our image and copyright policies. I would appreciate if you would answer my question - why have you replaced one non free file with another higher resolution non free file ? This is a simple questions which I expect a sensible response to. Nick (talk) 08:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Bullying is defined as a person attack on an individual, I did not attack Shakespeare as an individual, I told them to leave at the time because their edits was causing questionable harm to Wikipedia. And here you are, rudely barging into a conversation by contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion, and being hypocritical by preaching collaboration yet exercising conflict at every given moment. @SergeCross73:, @Ferret:, this moderator is intimidating me with their moderator status by requesting questions to be answers that I not need to answer. I do not need to tell them why I have uploaded files, they are clearly trying to get the last word on a conversation that has already been dealt with between me and Shakespeare. @Nick:, I apologised to Shakespeare, we came to a consensus, so for you to still try and threaten me like this by demanding answers is the very definition of bullying. I don't owe you anything at all. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Iftekharahmed96: I've no interest in getting the last word in. I simply want to know why you replaced a low resolution file which is compliant with our fair use policies with a higher resolution file which initially wasn't (File:Capcom Vancouver logo.png → File:Capcom Vancouver.png) ? I now need to decide if you're deliberately choosing not to answer, or if your understanding of policy and guideline is so deficient, you're unable to answer. This will enable me to decide on an appropriate course of action to invoke. Nick (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

You don't need to get involved with the process of that logo at all, I've been replacing outdated logo's on Wikipedia for a year now. For you to cast doubt on my basic editing abilities means that you do not have faith in my contributions. There's a bot that immediately compresses files that are too high of a resolution so I don't understand as to why this is a topic worth of discussion to begin with. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Apologies

I just want to apologise if I've tried to sound aggressive, that was not my intention. It's just that you making questionable edits followed by a statement of potentially leaving gave the impression that you did not want to edit for the better for the website, but rather, solely for your own amusement. It's entirely your choice as to whether you want to stay or leave, however, if you do wish to stay, please try and contact users directly through their page if you believe they're making questionable edits. That way, a mutual agreement can come to place. Thank you. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I am used to a robust response from contributors (and I'd be far more worried if there were no concerns at all being expressed). I've added NFUR rationales to the images you got warnings about, so the resolved the concern that caused them to get tagged, and hence the warnings you got on your talk page have also been struck out. I do also review batches of CSD tags I've added, as sometimes images get rescued or their information updated after they have been tagged. This is something you can also assist with by monitoring the various categories that list tagged images.

I appreciate image policy compliance is tedious, and the reason some of your uploads got tagged was not because they weren't being used, it was because they were in use, but appeared to lack a reason as to why. That's what the NFUR rationales I added provide, a reasoning and justification as to why they can be used despite being copyright to third parties. As global copyright policy changes it has become ever more important to ensure that fair use is fully justified against the claims of certain rights holders that have different views on it from most Wikipedians, and this is why images without NFUR rationales (or sufficient information) will get challenged when uploaded on Wikipedia.

Your comments about a more personal approach have been made before in many forums, but given the volume of material Wikipedia (and Commons) gets, and the number of potential uploaders, it's not always effective to provide a personalized enquiry about a concern, hence the 'robot' like nature of the standard warnings.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

For those images that you've modified, I was using a pre-existing template that was used by other Wikipedia editors which further raised confusion and concern on my end. Regardless, I'll ensure to use the most copyright-friendly template for future image uploads. I am fully aware of the legality and compliance when it comes to non-free material and I have no issue complying to that. Thank you for being collaborative and understanding with this matter. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

BTW if you are based in Europe, please take a look at a recent WMF blog post concerning copyright changes planned there. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

GRTC Pulse

Thanks for the heads up, I went ahead and added the {{own}} tag. Cheers! Quidster4040 (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Extra div tag broke template

I just undid your edit to {{WikiProjectCard}}, which broke member boxes at pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's Health. Be careful out there, and test your edits using the sandbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

ThanksShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Salt.sill.jpeg

In this edit you added the Template:Information to File:Salt.sill.jpeg, but failed to fill in the author parameter, which has been clearly indicated since 2006 as "... photo taken by uploader. It's one thing to not realise that "photo taken by uploader" means that the uploader, Bishonen, is the author (by definition). It's quite another to then go to her talk page and complain that the template you added is missing the parameter that you missed. --RexxS (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Ditto File:Santa's little helpers.png - "I created this image ..." --RexxS (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Ditto File:Bishzilla Lucia Looking Right.gif - "Own work created by rotating ... --RexxS (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Ditto File:Bishzilla Lucia.gif - "Own work --RexxS (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Ditto File:Plush.rhino.bearing.gifts.jpeg - "Photographed by uploader. --RexxS (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Etc. Don't you see what the problem is here? --RexxS (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Well when I used to fill out those field under that logic, I got told off for 'assuming' self works, thusly the ORIGINAL uploader get's asked to confirm the details. If this approach is too blunt then I suggest you get policy changed in a way that allows for self to be assumed in such instances, without the original uploader needing to be reminded. I don't like leaving a lot of notifcations either. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not too blunt, it's too bloody incomprehensible, that's what it is. I understand you're trying to do something useful in sending out such notifications, Shakespearefan, but please try talk to be understood. Getting rid of all the curly brackets and addressing me in humanspeak would be a start. RexxS, now that I've read your comment above, I sort of understand what Shakespearefan's message on my page referred to. Could you fill in the stuff? Bishonen | talk 22:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC).

You may need a modified version of Giano's edict in order to forestall any ANI action. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

ANI action? FGS. I hesitate to put this on the long-suffering RexxS, but I'll post a proclamation. Thank you, Redrose64. Bishonen | talk 08:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC).

Yes, it's now archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive965#User:RexxS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: Please attribute or claim media you uploaded or restored: File:RuneScape inverted phat.gif

Hi ShakespeareFan,

Thanks for letting me know about the issue with the above image, that's a bit of a blast-from-the-past for me. As requested, I've updated it's source/author info (made by me, with my mad MS Paint skillz).

As I recall (my memory is extremely hazy on this, and I've had no luck tracking down any talkpage discussions about it), it was a userbox image I made to replace a possibly non-free original, back when there was a crackdown on non-free images in userspaces. However, it looks like my past self didn't get the original deleted from the image history. I'm mostly lurking/inactive on WP these days, so I'm not up to speed on current processes - if you think it's necessary, could you point me towards the best way to get that non-free old version removed?

Thanks and regards,

CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 21:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@CaptainVindaloo: - If you want something deleted you can using speedy deletion G7, However if it's accutaly in use, I suggest listing it at Files for Disscussion following the procedure at the top of the FFD page.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Holborn station RDT

Before I hit revert, I'd thought I'd ask why you felt it necessary to change a neat, left-justified list into a disorderly centre-justified column? Useddenim (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I can change that. Just a misplaced center tag ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, concern noted, Just needed to move where some brackets where to resolve it :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks much better. And I see that my original formatting looks somewhat abstruse (although not all those {{small}} tags may be necessary). Useddenim (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Mount-Buninyong-detail-1.jpeg

You left a message on my talk page saying that this file did not have source and license. I'm confused: everything looks correct to me, in particular license (Creative Commons) and source (my own work), and it has been like that since I uploaded it. What am I missing? If there's really a problem, how about fixing it and letting me check the changes.

If there's really something wrong, this would also suggest that there's an issue with the upload page, since I followed the instructions exactly. Groogle (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Groogle: The recent message I sent you, was about the information block, I'd added. If you got a message about a missing source/license that wasn't from me. What you need to do now is indicate it's own work given you uploaded it under a self license.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

!ShakespeareFan00: I'm baffled. All the information you want is there. From the displayed page:

Source Original at http://www.lemis.com/grog/Photos/20180528/big/Mount-Buninyong-detail-1.jpeg

Author Greg Lehey

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License.

GFDL Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation license, Version 1.2 or any later version

Presumably it's just not in the form that you expect. But I can't see what needs changing. This sounds like pure bureaucracy to me. Can you point me to instructions? Groogle (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Groogle: If the information is all present, then good, but a confirmation of own work, would be appreciated.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

!ShakespeareFan00: Sorry, I still don't understand, and you haven't explained. As I said, all the information you want is there, and it has been since I uploaded it. If I'm missing something, please tell me what.

@Groogle:, What was missing is an indication that that the file on the external source you gave, attributed to "Greg Lehey" is your own work, or to put it another way YOU should indicate in the file description page that you are "Greg Lehey" , you can do this by adding the {{own}} template alongside the external source. I'm sorry if this seems tiresome, or burecratic, but it's nice to be clear about such things. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Based on your User Page I've now updated the {{information}} block with the relevant template, in good faith. You don't now need to do anything, but it would still be appreciated if you could (optionally) add any additional description information you have such as an OS grid reference for the location if you have one. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: File source problem with File:OpenClonk *.png

I have added attribution to the authors. I hope this suffices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaikeldeVries (talk • contribs) 11:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Attribution for media I uploaded

Hello, I have added the required templates you mentioned for the image you referred. I'll go through the upload log and check the other media files as well. Thanks for the note. --H P Nadig ^{\Talk \Contributions} 07:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Normandie-class illustration.jpg, etc.

Hello. I'm having a hard time figuring out what the problem is, given that you routinely work on images. The linked image is obviously of French origin, so for it to be moved to Commons, it needs to be PD in both the United States and France. I don't know Pierre La Conte is, much less when he died, so we can't prove the latter. But we do have a pre-1923 publication, so it's licensed perfectly for it to be kept on en.wiki. Parsecboy (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The wrong license tag was added because of the issue of it being potentially PD-US-1923-abroad vs PD-US which the publication source would suggest.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

All images now listed at FFD, for a wider discussion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't determine why I need to explain that while a photo might have been published in the US before 1923 (and thus be PD-US), it might also not be the first publication. With images such as these, it's very difficult to determine first publication, which is why I've uploaded these to en.wiki, not Commons. Parsecboy (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

You could mark them as {{Do not move to Commons}} giving the reasoning that "Whilst the publication listed might reasonably assumed to be PD-US, this is not necessarily the first publication, and thus the files have been uploaded locally owing to an ambiguity as to their status." ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikivoyage -A travel guide to Forts?

Thanks for the suggestion. Yes i am interested in contributing for the Wikivoyage Ccmarathe(talk)

Template:BSto

The template has an italicization option; see the documentation. Jc86035 (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, rather than fixing the Lint errors in the individual diagrams, it's probably better to replace the code in the Lua module, since the BSsplit templates are still table-based and they shouldn't be because they're supposed to be text. I don't know if I have time to figure it out but you could try expanding it in Special:ExpandTemplates. Jc86035 (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't code Lua, but if you want to start an RFC about repalacing the old style BS templates, I'd be more than prepared to back you up. :)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Template changes

I see you have been making a fair number of (what I assume to be) Lint-fixing errors in templates. I must ask that you a) do not mark them as minor, and b) use an edit summary. This will give other editors an indication of what is being done to the templates during your edits. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks! This section caught my eye, I just got an opposite minor edits suggestion on my talk page today, asking me to mark minor edits. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, you're probably right re: the minor edit thing, but SF00 is still making a huge number of edits without a single note as to what is going on. Primefac (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Turns out that the editor who gave me a going over about minor edits meant categorizing edits, without telling me, and it now seems that category edits shouldn't be marked as minor. I always check edits to templates on my watchlist, but yes, there should be an edit summary. That way it gives a hint of what is occurring. A link fix on a template is a valuable edit, thanks ShakespeareFan00. A quick edit summary note "link fix" would be all that's needed. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello. The template changes you made to "Speedway event 7p/p" on July 30th here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ASpeedway_event_7p%2Fp&type=revision&diff=852697306&oldid=689796755 have broken a lot of articles with respect to the team name and flag going missing. For example here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Speedway_World_Pairs_Championship and in every single page for each year of this championship we can no longer see the team names, which is pretty much the most essential information in the article. Please could you fix asap. Thank you --Rcclh (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rcclh: Reverted it back to a KNOWN (but broken version) , perhaps you'd like to implement what you consider to be a the CORRECT fix? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

<star class="barn">

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For ongoing prodigious efforts to de-fuzz the world's largest document source-code outfit, removing the WP:LINT of broken HTML.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Curious what tool(s) you're using for this. And if it/then can also fix font/center/strike junk, and change <br> to <br /> (since the former messes with syntax highlighters).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: No tools, just LintHint, Special:LintErrors and basic syntax highlights.. Arguably using my edits to try and train a bot to do it might be helpful. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I've been doing it the same way (here and there). I'm sure AWB/JWB will catch a few of them with WP:GENFIXES, but I don't use it frequently.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: - Some of them like font color --> span, should be done using an automated tool as the conversion is straightforward. , Finding mismatches is less easy to automate.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The tough one is often <center /> <center> conversion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes - There isn't a direct conversion for that between HTML and CSS I've found. I think there's something to do with margins you can do though.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Where is this <center /> used? The slash denotes a self-closing tag, like <br />. Do you mean <center>...</center>? If so, there is indeed no direct equivalent, but depending upn the context, other techniques may be suitable. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I've found center used to mean 'block centered' (ie. margin adjustment) and to mean 'center justifcation' (i.e text-align adjustment).

One is a block level operation the other Paragraph based... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The <center /> tag should have no effect. Do you have links to where that actual syntax was used? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Derp. That was a {{tag}} template typo; I meant <center> in general. Dealing with centering is tough because the CSS to replace it with (when used appropriately at all – it should often just be removed, e.g. from image captions) varies widely depending on the element type. We do have class=center but it only works on block elements. For inline elements it's a hassle, involving interplay between that element and the surrounding container, or converting the inline one into inline-block, which often still doesn't work. The real bear of a case is when (especially in user and project space) <center>...</center> is applied around a whole block or set of blocks and all their content, producing a CSS conversion situation that has to deal with multiple centring approaches at the same time on different sorts of elements.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Found a nasty case to look for: People sometimes unwisely use angle brackets as parenthesizing or other delimiters. I just ran into a case that looked something like "To quote Username123 above: <I think we should just delete this claim as improperly sourced.> Sounds like a good idea to me." The new parser/linter combo is now treating this as <i ...> without an ending </i>, and thus italicizing the entirety of the rest of the page (and not showing the "angle-quoted" comment). This didn't happen so catastrophically before the recent change, because open inline tags were terminated forcibly as soon as another block element opened. I s'pect that almost all cases of <I ... or <i ..., site-wide, are going to be things like this, since there is no reason to insert a space there in real HTML <i> (as <i >), and <i /> isn't really a thing (it might survive some validators but it has no use case).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

What about when the <i> tag has attributes? There's always a valid space in such cases. People might do this particularly in their custom sigs, since <i style="color:green">Example</i> is ten fewer bytes than ''<span style="color:green">Example</span>'', as custom sigs have a 255-byte limit. Similarly, <i class="...">...</i>, <i id="...">...</i> and <i lang="...">...</i> are all valid. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Rights

Hi, Can you check if you can get Filemover and page mover rights. I see you can make good use of these rights. WP:PERM --DBigXray 19:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I could , but I don't NEED those rights, and I voluntarily resigned them a while back, if you want to know why ask on WP:AN ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I see. All right. Good day to you then. --DBigXray 19:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Image licenses

Hi, I see that you have tagged some images uploaded by me as being problematic with regards to copyright. I uploaded these files:

• File:IIFL company logo.png - A logo of a company; does this not meet pd-logo guidelines it is fairly simplistic. (Though I have a rationale to the file now).

Screenshots:

• File:Google search dictionary.png
• File:AF Screenshot.png

I thought the screenshots belong to the person who takes but that does not seem to be the case. It would be really helpful if they can be converted to fair-use. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I have now corrected the image licensing and data per NFCC guidelines. Gotitbro (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

File:User brighterorange.jpg

Greetings, you seem to have missed that I did decline the file split request as it's an userspace image that isn't going to be used anywhere else. Splitting files does do some damage to the page history and takes time so I'd rather not do unnecessary busywork. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Same for File:Shantavira2.jpg. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Barsoi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bengali

El Condado (Laviana) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aldea

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. () Hi ShakespeareFan00, I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team, and after reviewing your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users like yourself. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board. Cheers, and hope to see you around, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: - Thanks, but that would be outside my area of expertise.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

No problem with File:92-engels-socialism-titlepage.jpg

This is a copyright-clear image, having been published outside the USA prior to 1923 with no claim of copyright. The author has been dead for more than 100 years, the publisher is defunct. Slavish reproductions of copyright-clear materials are not copyrightable; ergo the source of the file is completely irrelevant. I will be removing your erroneous tag. Thank you. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Carrite: - You could also put a note to that effect in the source field. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

No problem with File:94-RomanismAtWashington.jpg

As specified at the time of my upload, this is a scan of an image in a book, date of publication 1894, page provided. Once again, published in the USA prior to 1923, public domain; slavish reproductions of copyright-clear images are not themselves copyrightable, ergo the source of the file is completely irrelevant. This makes three of my of my old images you've been wrongly monkeying with today, not that I'm counting... Carrite (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Nastar image

Hi Shakes, I quoted the owner's entire emailed permission message (which was based on my request) in the image file. Is there anything else you need? Crum375 (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Crum375: , you need to send the permission you got, to the OTRS permissions queue, per WP:COPYREQ. Also please lobby your elected representatives to oppose the recently approved changes to EU copyright policy, which would make it harder for sites to use 'freely' donated content like yours. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:Files with no machine-readable source

Hi ShakespeareFan00, do you know what populates Category:Files with no machine-readable source? I created User:B/Files with no machine-readable source with a similar query to the one you were using and a good number of the images had a source given with some other template like {{Image information art}}. So I'm not sure what is populating the category. Do you know? --B (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't , my query had to do a lot of exclusions, because of the source being presented in a different way.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I found it! m:File_metadata_cleanup_drive/How_to_fix_metadata. I have modified {{Image information art}} accordingly. Any other pseudo-information templates should probably be modified to have these fields. --B (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File splits

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T67339

Greetings,

before tagging a file for splitting please check whether it can actually be split. For example, File:Stinson Hall, Woodlawn School.jpg shows two uploaders and files in the File history but the history page shows only one of them. Such files cannot be split. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Duly noted. In this instance, I'd say that unless there is progress on figuring out the bug the 'intruder image' is the one that should be deleted as there is no way to 'prove' the license so to speak. Willing to start a discussion on this somewhere appropriate? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

AWB

Hey. I was loading AWB to say I could just do the template swap for you. Easy enough to load the most recent #### contribs, filter out all but file namespace, and do a find and replace for {{di-no source|date=15 September 2018|non-free=yes|help=off}} and {{img-unclaimed}}. Let me know. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I don't think I marked them with non-free=yes on the vast majority of them, the non-free yes was in relation to the rugby images that I'd already reviewed, But if you want to attempt a cleanup, don't let me stop you... Suggest you at least notify (if not consult) the WP:AN thread though... This is something that it would be nice to have an agreed forward strategy on. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Stevan Harnad.jpg

Dear User:ShakespeareFan00 Thanks for the message that I need to update the permissions for this photo. I read the souces and it seems I need to put an {{own}} somewhere, but I don't know where. I tried putting it on the comments beside the photo. (It is indeed my own photo, taken for me at my university,) I wouls be very grateful if you could tell me what to do. Best wishes, --User:Harnad (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:FCSANPedroLogo.png

Hello, it was a big mistake from me :) fixed now ;) Experio2018 (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Your help desk question

You didn't get a response. Did you ever find out how to do what you wanted with WMF?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Which help desk question was this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

This one.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't but the issue has been raised in other ways. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:NBG Evolution.pdf

Hi ShakespeareFan00! Thank you for reminding me to upload en:File:NBG Evolution.pdf and en:File:NBG Evolution svg.svg to commons. I uploaded them just now under the very same file names commons:File:NBG Evolution.pdf and commons:File:NBG Evolution svg.svg. You'll find them e.g. in commons:Category:Set theory. Could you please help me with deleting the local files? Many thanks in advance. Best regards - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Marked them as CSD F8. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Oregonstation2.jpg

Hi shakespeareFan001. Can you help me to attribute this file properly? This is my own work, but I’m a little lost with the licensing. --Ii2nmd (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Re:Better source request for File:B-2 Spirit Night reloaded.JPG

I found the original picture and updated the external link accordingly. As a two man rule thing, I wanted to let you decide if the new addition is sufficient enough to take down the tag or if more information is still required. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Macaddct1984's talk page.
Message added 22:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you! - Consumer Reports

You asked me on my talk page about Consumer Reports. I was Wikimedian in Residence there from 2012-2018. They are still my professional colleagues but now I am Wikimedian at the Data Science Institute of the University of Virginia. I expect to always be able to be an advocate for collaboration between Consumer Reports, the Consumer Movement generally, and Wikimedia projects. How can I help? We can talk here, by video or voice if you email me, or any other way you like. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC) (reply) Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding File:NewBrunswick CoatOfArms.png

I provided correction and additional information including the authorship and clarification on the copyright matters on File:NewBrunswick CoatOfArms.png page. I removed the warning box, but if you feel the information I provided is inadequate, do not hesitate to contact me for further clarification. Thank you. --Nudimmud (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Image licensing

I can’t be arsed, I’m doing this to make all this knowledge more accessible, not to have it be a part time job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingSepron (talk • contribs) 09:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

No permission, no upload - Simple. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Bih 1941.GIF

It was long time ago, but I think that I made it... --Čeha (razgovor) 21:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Source citation

Hey! Thanks for letting me know I hadn’t attached a source to those sound files. I fixed it. Dabblequeen (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding File:Richardson Isaac E III.jpg and File:USS Coronado 1993 Change of Command.jpg

Regarding File:Richardson Isaac E III.jpg and File:USS Coronado 1993 Change of Command.jpg.... These pictures are DECADES old. Exact identity of the photographer cannot be determined.... because they were employees of the US Navy. So can you prove the image is NOT the work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made as part of that person's official duties and therefore NOT the work of the U.S. federal government and NOT in the public domain? If no, then get over it. Eric Cable  !  Talk  18:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

It needs a clear source to let someone check that it is actually a US Navy image, It doesn't have to be an online source. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Pictures are over twenty years old. Impossible to attribute. Don't be a deltionist. Eric Cable  !  Talk  15:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Edmonton Oil Kings 2018 logo.png

Would you object if I closed the FFD discussion for File:Edmonton Oil Kings 2018 logo.png as keep? The file description has been amended to assert fair use, and it's a fairly standard rationale for the logo of a sports team. Maxim_(talk) 14:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Maxim: Not at all. If you can close an FFD early.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Homer wise wikipedia.jpg

Have put a link from the official blog of the Homer L. Wise Memorial Committee on the image which credits the photo courtesy of the U.S. Army on the photo now. There was up until 2017 an official site of the Homer L. Wise Memorial Committee but the founder James S. Vlasto has since passed away and the site is no longer online. The same photo is also in the Louisiana Military Hall of Fame which can be identified from a post on the same website. I hope the link is enough. Koheli (talk) 9:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Koheli: Thanks... If you can improve the sourcing on other images as well, please proceed. :_) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: Better source request for File:James M Hawes - 1850.jpg

That image was uploaded eleven years ago, and I am not sure I remember the source. However, I would note that the source information is irrelevant, given the nature of the image. The image is a document from the United States Census Bureau, which would clearly place it into the public domain, so I'm not entirely certain that the "copyright status may [need to] be checked more easily." I understand the need for content that may have questionable copyright status, but this doesn't seem to meet that metric. I've updated the image page with the best information I can provide. — HiB2Bornot2B ^talk Go Big Blue! 20:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)