User talk:DatGuy/Archives/2020/May

This is an archive of past discussions with User:DatGuy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The article Edwin Flack you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Edwin Flack for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The article Edwin Flack you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Edwin Flack for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

On 5 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Edwin Flack, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when a spectator tried to help Australia's first Olympian Edwin Flack after he collapsed during the 1896 marathon event, the athlete punched him to the ground? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Edwin Flack. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Edwin Flack), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am very sorry to report that Ronhjones passed away with his wife in a house fire last April. Since your user talk page came up among the ones he most edited with non-automated messages per his edit count, I thought I should let you know. Graham87 12:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh my, that's horrible. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you please disable your bot from revising File:The World of Harry Potter 4 Pack.jpg. The file is making only a 5KB of difference from 65 to 60KB and makes the text very hard to read as the result. --Osh33m (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Osh33m: It has not to do with filesize, but rather the dimensions. See WP:IMAGERES. The dimensions (500 × 399 pixels) of the file are to big.Jonteemil (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: Understood but resizing the dimensions of the original image makes the text very hard to read. The image has cover arts for four different video games and after the resize, the text on the image is too small to read, and the individual cover arts are harder to distinguish. The image should be left as is. --Osh33m (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Osh33m: Well, Wikipedia has to abide by the law, that is Fair use, even if it makes people annoyed. You don't have to agree with it but unfortunately the law is the law🤷‍♂️.Jonteemil (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: As far as the law is concerned though, copyright was attributed to Warner Brothers when the image was uploaded. There are other copyright images with dimensions bigger or as big as this image. It's not a matter of people getting annoyed, it's a matter of defeating the purpose of having the image there. From what I can tell, using the image in its original dimensions is fair use. --Osh33m (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Osh33m: The only way for the file not to be reduced is if it is tagged with {{Non-free no reduce}} but I'm not sure if it qualifies. Perhaps @JJMC89: knows?Jonteemil (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Osh33m: Hello! Have you forgot this: "It has not to do with filesize, but rather the dimensions. See WP:IMAGERES. The dimensions (500 × 399 pixels) of the file are to big."? Why do you keep reverting the file?Jonteemil (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Jonteemil: No I did not forget that, I already told you why. There are other copyrighted images with dimensions bigger or as big as that image that don't go through resizing changes. There is no need to resize the file, it's small enough to look at as is. --Osh33m (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Osh33m: Then please tag the file with {{Non-free no reduce}} or this reduce and revert game will go on for ever.Jonteemil (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: Understood, sorry yes you did instruct me to do that before. Where on the page do I put the tag? --Osh33m (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Osh33m: Put it on the line above ==Summary==.Jonteemil (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: Done --Osh33m (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Cortana, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi DatGuy, I made revisions and additions to Academy of the New Church Secondary Schools, after which I felt removal of Advert tag will be valid. Please review and let me know if you agree. Pratat (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pratat: Looks great compared to when I added the tag, good work. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, earlier today DatBot reported an IP for triggering 906. Is the filter bad enough that a single violation routinely warrants a block? I just can't envision behaviour that would warrant a block after just one edit or attempted edit, except for stuff that's truly awful, and distinguishing between truly awful content and something innocent would require a human, I expect. Please note that I can't view the filter itself; as an admin I've got access, but I'm on my fewer-rights public computer sock account right now. Nyttend backup (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

PS, is it possible to reprogram DatBot so it doesn't report someone twice in short succession? I removed the linked report at 23:37 today, and because the IP made another violation, the bot made another report at 23:44. I'd be inclined to think that it shouldn't do this: if a report has been removed and the user hasn't been blocked, the report was likely a bad idea, and the bot probably shouldn't repeat a report that wasn't good in the first place. Thanks! Nyttend backup (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Crow added the filter originally at [1]. I'll look into your latter point. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• 906 was added when that vandal was going many times per day. Now they've mostly gone quiet, certainly not enough to warrant the bot reporting, so Ive removed it. Crow^Caw 16:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)