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.

Hello! I'm a new wikipedian and I saw you were adopting users, and I would like to fall under your mentorship :) Looks like we share the same interests with video games and whatnot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xetotrius (talk • contribs) 17:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-05-27T17:32:00.000Z","author":"Xetotrius","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Xetotrius-2017-05-27T17:32:00.000Z-Wish_to_be_adopted","replies":["c-DatGuy-2017-06-02T16:32:00.000Z-Xetotrius-2017-05-27T17:32:00.000Z"]}}-->

@Xetotrius: Sorry, I'm already mentoring a user :). If you still need a mentor once the other editor doesn't need support anymore, I'll be sure to help you :). Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-02T16:32:00.000Z","author":"DatGuy","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-DatGuy-2017-06-02T16:32:00.000Z-Xetotrius-2017-05-27T17:32:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Dat Guy"}}-->

If you were determined to make the Teletype Model 28 Tape Punch Set.jpg unreadable and basically unusable by reducing the picture in size then CONGRATULATIONS, you have succeeded!

And, you saved 150KB too!

20:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

:). I've fixed this since the section was made. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-02T16:32:00.000Z","author":"DatGuy","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-DatGuy-2017-06-02T16:32:00.000Z-Teletype_Model_28_Tape_Punch_Set","replies":[],"displayName":"Dat Guy"}}-->

On 5 June 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Cheick Tioté, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-05T17:46:00.000Z","author":"Ad Orientem","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ad_Orientem-2017-06-05T17:46:00.000Z-ITN_recognition_for_Cheick_Tiot\u00e9","replies":[]}}-->

Hi DatGuy/Archives/2017,

In view of the huge and sudden backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed since mid 2016, the WMF has begun a dialogue in a quest to examine the situation and possible solutions. Please consider commenting there if you have not already done so. It is highly recommended to read it all before it becomes too long to follow. The project is at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Analysis and proposal, and its talk page.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-05T18:57:00.000Z","author":"MediaWiki message delivery","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MediaWiki_message_delivery-2017-06-05T18:57:00.000Z-The_future_of_NPP_and_AfC\/Work_group","replies":[]}}-->

19:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Please let the bot stop reducing images it got reverted on before. Images made from text become unreadable: resolution not applicable. Other images are only fair use when the resolution stays the same. It also ignores the values of low resolution in the Non-free media information and use rationale. Ondertitel (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-01T19:24:00.000Z","author":"Ondertitel","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ondertitel-2017-06-01T19:24:00.000Z-NonFreeImageResizer","replies":["c-DatGuy-2017-06-02T16:32:00.000Z-Ondertitel-2017-06-01T19:24:00.000Z"]}}-->

I'll see if there's a similar complaint but Ronhjones am I wrong saying that the original size of File:AXXo nfo.png was small enough? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-02T16:32:00.000Z","author":"DatGuy","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-DatGuy-2017-06-02T16:32:00.000Z-Ondertitel-2017-06-01T19:24:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ronhjones-2017-06-02T20:36:00.000Z-DatGuy-2017-06-02T16:32:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Dat Guy"}}-->

@Ondertitel: One man's low res is another man's high res. Also Wikipedia uses a strange defination of file-resolution - it's the square root of the pixel count - try incategory:"All non-free media" fileres:>316 filetype:bitmap in an advanced search for Files - it shows all files greater than a fileres of 316 which is 100,000 pixels as shown in the non-free guideline at WP:Image resolution (yes, there are a lot there - it is going to take us some time to sort out this category). There is no requirement to have the text perfectly in focus, even the reduced image in this case is still readable, so I do not see any reason to have a bigger image. If you insist on a bigger image then we will have to go to WP:FFD and get a consensus. Your image is 287,200 pixels (fileres=536) which is rather well over the guideline. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-02T20:36:00.000Z","author":"Ronhjones","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Ronhjones-2017-06-02T20:36:00.000Z-DatGuy-2017-06-02T16:32:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ondertitel-2017-06-03T09:34:00.000Z-Ronhjones-2017-06-02T20:36:00.000Z"]}}-->

@Ronhjones: Please take a step back and ask yourself what you're doing. Objectively, you are making Wikipedia worse. I hope you are able to reach this level understanding.

Secondly, you are abusing the WP:MINOR checkbox for the template adding. Where should we get a consensus on that, WP:ANI?

Now, I see you have the understanding/knowledge of the guideline, but you are lacking wisdom. (exactly this is the Achilles' heel of WP, but that's another discussion [13]) A guideline is something that can be deviated from, but in such a way to still walk the line in the larger scheme of things. You'll have to get beyond the binary application of a rule and understand exceptions exist. The images in question are all text-based. The text is converted into an image to force the code page it should be viewed in, having the art displayed as intended. An image facilitates the inclusion on the page. These text files are often part of warez releases or closely related to it. They are intended to be shared, but of course there is no formal license for it. The current "high res" image is already smaller than how it's commonly viewed. I don't call the reduced image readable. It clearly reduces the WP:ACCESSIBILITY for visible users. Added to all that, remember the guidelines are worse than the minimum observed by law. Ondertitel (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-03T09:34:00.000Z","author":"Ondertitel","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Ondertitel-2017-06-03T09:34:00.000Z-Ronhjones-2017-06-02T20:36:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Sorry, I misunderstood the situation. Ronhjones is abusing the WP:MINOR checkbox. Your bot reacts correctly. I strongly suggest to ignore templates added as a minor edit. Ondertitel (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-03T07:27:00.000Z","author":"Ondertitel","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ondertitel-2017-06-03T07:27:00.000Z-NonFreeImageResizer","replies":["c-BU_Rob13-2017-06-03T16:08:00.000Z-Ondertitel-2017-06-03T07:27:00.000Z","c-Stefan2-2017-06-03T21:55:00.000Z-Ondertitel-2017-06-03T07:27:00.000Z"]}}-->

@Ronhjones: You shouldn't add non-free reduce with a minor edit; uncheck the minor edit box in AWB for those edits. @Ondertitel: One of the prongs of the test on whether content is eligible for fair use is whether the minimum amount of the work necessary is used, which is why we need an image to be low resolution. Wikipedia is most worse off if the WMF and our contributors, including individuals that re-added copyright violations such as yourself in this case, get sued by copyright holders for adding copyright infringing content. Note that if copyright is registered with the US Copyright Office, copyright holders can sue for statutory damages, meaning they don't even have to prove the violation adversely affected them (just that it could have, to defeat one of the prongs of the fair use test). Statutory damages can run as high as $30,000. Our non-free content criteria are intended to prevent us from being open to liability under current copyright law. Given that it's a policy with legal considerations, there are no exceptions when applying them. In any event, this image doesn't even qualify for non-free use in full, as only the logo is needed for identification purposes. I'll crop it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-03T16:08:00.000Z","author":"BU Rob13","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-BU_Rob13-2017-06-03T16:08:00.000Z-Ondertitel-2017-06-03T07:27:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ronhjones-2017-06-03T21:31:00.000Z-BU_Rob13-2017-06-03T16:08:00.000Z","c-Ondertitel-2017-06-05T10:13:00.000Z-BU_Rob13-2017-06-03T16:08:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Rob13"}}-->

OK, AWB settings changed. I've put s {{non-free no reduce}} on the cropped image, I assume you don't want it reduced further. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-03T21:31:00.000Z","author":"Ronhjones","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Ronhjones-2017-06-03T21:31:00.000Z-BU_Rob13-2017-06-03T16:08:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

@BU Rob13: Again, this is another prime example of what's wrong with Wikipedia culture causing user drop off. Let's take the approach of a proof. What do we have?

• The policy. The policy is WP:NFCC and repeated on WP:FAIRUSE. Everything applicable to the discussion is this piece:

3. Minimal usage: b. Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.

• All relevant bits related to the guideline is summarized in this quote:

Image resolution: There is no firm guideline on allowable resolutions for non-free content;

• An example to discuss is File:AXXo nfo.png
• Because I sense a lack of understanding, here is a complete example of the text where the image could be sourced from [14]. The image is of the text shown with the cp437 character set.
• The safe harbor protections for Wikimedia. [15] [16] [17] [18]

What do I want to prove? Very simple, nothing to prove. Facts are in the given. Everything else is interpretation (culture) and/or bias. Only things to indicate: approach, fearmongering or lies.

"eligible for fair use is whether the minimum amount of the work necessary is used, which is why we need an image to be low resolution" The word 'which' indicates an implication, but there isn't. The policy exists of standalone parts: the portion and the fidelity. Each independent of each other. I argue the portion was minimal for its use on the article page: "Visual of a typical .nfo file included in a movie release." and the rationale for the image: "To illustrate a file that validates the authenticity of an aXXo release." You changed the purpose to logo, but he original purpose is to refer to an .nfo file. It's minimal in that it uses the art text header and one part of the body. Refer to the original source where the body is much longer. The body part is cleared of text to make it movie release independent and minimal. The other part is the fidelity. The original is resolution independent. Making it an image reduces the resolution by definition. As explained before, the resolution of the image is made lower than how it's commonly viewed. High: text, standard: image made of average font size, low: small font used for image. Making it even smaller made the text unintelligible for its purpose.

"Wikipedia is most worse off if..." Here starts the fearmongering. As shown above, there never was a copyright violation. The Wikimedia foundation is protected by the safe harbor laws. It's about warez, so no way in hell that something is registered. The original is text. What you write are things to say to make people understand why things happen the way they do, but it cannot be used as argumentation. It is pushing a certain bias. "Given that it's a policy with legal considerations, there are no exceptions when applying them." While this is 100% true, it must not be used it in a way to further guideline compliance. That is the part where there most certainly are exceptions on how to implement the policy in a specific case.

"this image doesn't even qualify for non-free use in full, as only the logo is needed for identification purposes." The purpose was showing an NFO file, not a logo for identification. From the article: "The aXXo postings also carried a .nfo file about the movie". Any visualization of the movie part is no more.

All that being said, I don't oppose the image cutoff. The structure of the NFO file isn't special enough to be mentioned in the article. The empty movie template information isn't referenced in the article and doesn't make the article nicer or better to understand. It's not unique. I think just the logo makes the page look nicer. But this is a choice we make for this specific case. I still oppose the size reduction of images specifically made from text to the point where they become totally useless and the reduction of demoscene images where the intent of its creators is totally ignored. Ondertitel (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-05T10:13:00.000Z","author":"Ondertitel","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Ondertitel-2017-06-05T10:13:00.000Z-BU_Rob13-2017-06-03T16:08:00.000Z","replies":["c-BU_Rob13-2017-06-05T12:44:00.000Z-Ondertitel-2017-06-05T10:13:00.000Z"]}}-->

Depicting the .nfo file, which has graphics that are undiscussed in the article itself, would fail WP:NFCC#8. Copyright does not need to be registered to be protected; it is automatic in the United States. The rest of the argument boils down to "We can get away with breaking the law, so we should", and that's obviously not (a) good practice, (b) respectful of the rights of copyright holders, or (c) supported by policy. Note that even if the WMF is protected, you are not, and a copyright holder can sue whoever uploaded/restored a copyright violation individually for actual or (if registered) statutory damages. Actual damages can be unlimited, whereas statutory damages are between $750 and $30,000 as determined by a court. That's one of many reasons we don't just knowingly allow people to break copyright law. As for the resolution, the previous resolution was several times larger than it appeared in the article. The bot reduced it roughly to the size it appeared as in the article itself. The only valid instance of fair use is in the article, so we have no need to store the image at a greater size in the file namespace. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-05T12:44:00.000Z","author":"BU Rob13","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-BU_Rob13-2017-06-05T12:44:00.000Z-Ondertitel-2017-06-05T10:13:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ondertitel-2017-06-06T19:41:00.000Z-BU_Rob13-2017-06-05T12:44:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Rob13"}}-->

I see that interpretation as too narrow. You still call text graphics. It boils more down to "When we can do it, we should". Avoid copyright paranoia To quote a famous decision in copyright law "the parties are advised to chill." Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894, 908 (9th Cir. 2002). Ondertitel (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-06T19:41:00.000Z","author":"Ondertitel","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Ondertitel-2017-06-06T19:41:00.000Z-BU_Rob13-2017-06-05T12:44:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

• (Non-administrator comment) I see that User:BU Rob13 removed a portion of File:AXXo nfo.png. However, that portion of the file isn't subject to copyright protection in my opinion – see Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc. WP:NFCC does not require us to remove public domain content from Wikipedia. In my opinion, the logo isn't copyrightable either. Some of the examples at c:COM:TOO#United States seem to be more complex than this.

If the country of first publication is the United States, then I'd tag the file with {{PD-ineligible}}. If the country of first publication is some other country (or if the country of first publication is unknown), then I'd use {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} to avoid that the file is moved to Commons in case it isn't allowed there. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-03T21:55:00.000Z","author":"Stefan2","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Stefan2-2017-06-03T21:55:00.000Z-Ondertitel-2017-06-03T07:27:00.000Z","replies":["c-BU_Rob13-2017-06-04T03:02:00.000Z-Stefan2-2017-06-03T21:55:00.000Z"]}}-->

@Stefan2: The threshold of originality is far lower than you're applying it. The logo is not simple geometric shapes. It contains originality in the shape of the shaded area surrounding the text, and so it is copyrightable. Further, text and layout may not be copyrightable, but this is not known for sure, and even if it were, isn't relevant here. The case you cited was a 4–4 split decision that did not set any national precedent. The court has become substantially more expansive in their view of copyright since that case was decided, to the point where I feel reasonably confident that they would say layout of a program is copyrightable if they decided a similar case today. For context, the current court expanded the set of copyrightable items to include the designs of any useful item, provided that design could be depicted outside of the useful item itself (e.g. in a photograph or drawing), which is a rather insane expansion of copyright. That decision was 6-2, so it wasn't even close. See Star Athletica, L. L. C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc.. Further, layout isn't what's likely copyrightable here. It's the framing which is. The fancy header, etc. is original. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-04T03:02:00.000Z","author":"BU Rob13","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-BU_Rob13-2017-06-04T03:02:00.000Z-Stefan2-2017-06-03T21:55:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Rob13"}}-->

15:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi DatGuy,
New trial failed and I aborted fairly early, as soon as I saw an issue. A couple of files were OK (see top 2 on Special:Contributions/RonBot) - both these files had the {{Orphaned non-free revisions|date=02:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)}} well down the page, after that it started to process files where the template was the top line, and it failed to remove the template - see Special:Log/RonBot. I assume this all down to the edit you did in respoinse to Rob's comment about blank lines. It appears to have stopped it working when the template is at the top. As an aside I fixed all the bad files with User:Legoktm/rescaled.js - that has a RegEx to remove the template which works OK - would that help you with this bot? Ron. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-08T02:13:00.000Z","author":"RonBot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-RonBot-2017-06-08T02:13:00.000Z-RonBot_problem","replies":["c-DatGuy-2017-06-15T22:11:00.000Z-RonBot-2017-06-08T02:13:00.000Z"]}}-->

@Ronhjones: Sorry, dumb mistake - Change the line in the code to
pagetext = re.sub(r'(?:\n)?\{\{(?:[Oo]rphaned non-free revisions|[Nn]on-free reduced).*}}', '', pagetext)
Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 22:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-15T22:11:00.000Z","author":"DatGuy","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-DatGuy-2017-06-15T22:11:00.000Z-RonBot-2017-06-08T02:13:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ronhjones-2017-06-15T22:51:00.000Z-DatGuy-2017-06-15T22:11:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Dat Guy"}}-->

It's good, small trial OK, now on run of 250. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-15T22:51:00.000Z","author":"Ronhjones","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Ronhjones-2017-06-15T22:51:00.000Z-DatGuy-2017-06-15T22:11:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ronhjones-2017-06-15T23:08:00.000Z-Ronhjones-2017-06-15T22:51:00.000Z"]}}-->

Removes the template fine, but leaves a blank line in it's place, and any blank lines below it. e.g.

{{Orphaned non-free revisions|date=00:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)}}

== Summary ==

With RonBot we are getting

== Summary ==

With User:Legoktm/rescaled.js I get

== Summary ==

Compare File:Babhdasound.jpg with File:Backtofronttempt.jpg Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-15T23:08:00.000Z","author":"Ronhjones","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Ronhjones-2017-06-15T23:08:00.000Z-Ronhjones-2017-06-15T22:51:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ronhjones-2017-06-15T23:18:00.000Z-Ronhjones-2017-06-15T23:08:00.000Z"]}}-->

"Borrowing" the code from the js script - will this work? ---- pagetext = re.sub(r'/\n*\{\{\s?(Non\-free reduced|Orphaned non\-free revisions)\s?\|\s?(?:\d|date)?\=?(\d\d\:\d\d\,\s\d\d?\s.*\s\d\d\d\d(\s\(UTC\))?|.*\d\d?(?:\s[a-z]+)?\s\d\d\d\d)\s?\}\}/ig', '', pagetext) ? Need to wait now, until there are more files available to process. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-15T23:18:00.000Z","author":"Ronhjones","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Ronhjones-2017-06-15T23:18:00.000Z-Ronhjones-2017-06-15T23:08:00.000Z","replies":["c-DatGuy-2017-06-16T08:49:00.000Z-Ronhjones-2017-06-15T23:18:00.000Z"]}}-->

@Ronhjones: Just replace the (:\n)? with \n*. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 08:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-16T08:49:00.000Z","author":"DatGuy","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-DatGuy-2017-06-16T08:49:00.000Z-Ronhjones-2017-06-15T23:18:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ronhjones-2017-06-16T19:07:00.000Z-DatGuy-2017-06-16T08:49:00.000Z","c-DatGuy-2017-06-16T19:12:00.000Z-DatGuy-2017-06-16T08:49:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Dat Guy"}}-->

?? There is no (:\n)? in the line you posted above - it's (?:\n)? - is that the bit to replace? Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-16T19:07:00.000Z","author":"Ronhjones","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Ronhjones-2017-06-16T19:07:00.000Z-DatGuy-2017-06-16T08:49:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Yes, sorry. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 19:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-16T19:12:00.000Z","author":"DatGuy","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-DatGuy-2017-06-16T19:12:00.000Z-DatGuy-2017-06-16T08:49:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ronhjones-2017-06-16T19:51:00.000Z-DatGuy-2017-06-16T19:12:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Dat Guy"}}-->

Sadly, still blank lines at top - User:RonBot/Source2 is what I just ran - see File:A push and a Shove.jpg Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-16T19:51:00.000Z","author":"Ronhjones","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Ronhjones-2017-06-16T19:51:00.000Z-DatGuy-2017-06-16T19:12:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

@Ronhjones: No idea, there shouldn't be any different with Lego's code. If you do want to try his, remove the /ig from the end of the regex and put it at the end. End result: pagetext = re.sub(r'/\n*\{\{\s?(Non\-free reduced|Orphaned non\-free revisions)\s?\|\s?(?:\d|date)?\=?(\d\d\:\d\d\,\s\d\d?\s.*\s\d\d\d\d(\s\(UTC\))?|.*\d\d?(?:\s[a-z]+)?\s\d\d\d\d)\s?\}\}', '', pagetext, flags=re.IGNORECASE) Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-16T20:44:00.000Z","author":"DatGuy","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-DatGuy-2017-06-16T20:44:00.000Z-RonBot_problem","replies":["c-Ronhjones-2017-06-16T21:03:00.000Z-DatGuy-2017-06-16T20:44:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Dat Guy"}}-->

Nothing is simple... Left the template in (File:A Time And A Place.jpg) - had to remove it with Lego's script! Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-16T21:03:00.000Z","author":"Ronhjones","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ronhjones-2017-06-16T21:03:00.000Z-DatGuy-2017-06-16T20:44:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ronhjones-2017-06-16T21:47:00.000Z-Ronhjones-2017-06-16T21:03:00.000Z"]}}-->

OK. going back to previous code and playing with a non-saving version, and looking at more detailed screen output - If I add pagetext='\n\n\n\n'+pagetext before the "re.sub" line, then that gives me 4 blank lines, then the template, then the blank line that is under it. After the "re.sub" there are two blank lines - that suggests that the 4 extra blank lines went OK, the template line has been replaced with a blank line and the blank line that was there is still there. Hope that makes some sense...? Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-16T21:47:00.000Z","author":"Ronhjones","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Ronhjones-2017-06-16T21:47:00.000Z-Ronhjones-2017-06-16T21:03:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ronhjones-2017-06-16T21:50:00.000Z-Ronhjones-2017-06-16T21:47:00.000Z"]}}-->

Maybe a second "re-sub" - removing blank lines when they are at the start of the string? Is that possible? Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-16T21:50:00.000Z","author":"Ronhjones","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Ronhjones-2017-06-16T21:50:00.000Z-Ronhjones-2017-06-16T21:47:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ronhjones-2017-06-16T22:41:00.000Z-Ronhjones-2017-06-16T21:50:00.000Z"]}}-->

Found the answer - added pagetext=pagetext.lstrip() after the "re.sub" statement, running a trial now Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-16T22:41:00.000Z","author":"Ronhjones","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Ronhjones-2017-06-16T22:41:00.000Z-Ronhjones-2017-06-16T21:50:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ronhjones-2017-06-16T22:54:00.000Z-Ronhjones-2017-06-16T22:41:00.000Z"]}}-->

75 files processed OK - code at User:RonBot/Source2, more tomorrow when more files available. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-16T22:54:00.000Z","author":"Ronhjones","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Ronhjones-2017-06-16T22:54:00.000Z-Ronhjones-2017-06-16T22:41:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ronhjones-2017-06-18T00:57:00.000Z-Ronhjones-2017-06-16T22:54:00.000Z"]}}-->

Running fine, found 3 issues - 2 fixed

1. If file has been put in "Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old needing human review", then it's still in "Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old", so it got processed again and another human=yes added - put the cat in with the list of cats to skip. Works.
2. File:Áilleacht.jpg failed - too many print statements - some did not like the accent and got "'ascii' codec can't encode character u'\xfa' in position 42: ordinal not in range(128)" - removed print statements. Works.
3. File:Farz Aur Kanoon.Jpg 4 images in list - call them - current, old1, old2, and old3. old3 deleted ages ago. Bot deleted old1 and left old2. Sadly lost log for that run, so wait for something similar to happen - as a last resort I can unhide old1 and old2 and (temp) delete the edits post DatBot to make it look like it did before the run. Hopefully I will find the error again first.

Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-18T00:57:00.000Z","author":"Ronhjones","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Ronhjones-2017-06-18T00:57:00.000Z-Ronhjones-2017-06-16T22:54:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Was working as above, found another file with multiples to do and did only one. The abuse check (which is done for each version) failed on the second pass. So I have modified the code User:RonBot/Source2 to set a variable (firstversion) to yes at the start of a file, and then only do the abuse checks on the first pass. I ran it as shown on the same file File:Amira Nature Foods Logo.png (after deleting the RonBot edits, so it looked OK to the Bot) and it works fine. Since my python is not great - can you have a quick look at my changes and see that it looks OK to continue? Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-18T16:41:00.000Z","author":"Ronhjones","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ronhjones-2017-06-18T16:41:00.000Z-RonBot_Update","replies":["c-DatGuy-2017-06-18T20:02:00.000Z-Ronhjones-2017-06-18T16:41:00.000Z"]}}-->

@Ronhjones: You could just move it above the for version in todelete: loop and under the for filep in pages: loop. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-18T20:02:00.000Z","author":"DatGuy","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-DatGuy-2017-06-18T20:02:00.000Z-Ronhjones-2017-06-18T16:41:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Dat Guy"}}-->

15:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

When reporting IP vandals, can you have it use Template:IPvandal instead of Template:Vandal? —Guanaco 23:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-21T23:03:00.000Z","author":"Guanaco","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Guanaco-2017-06-21T23:03:00.000Z-DatBot_minor_change","replies":["c-DatGuy-2017-06-22T10:45:00.000Z-Guanaco-2017-06-21T23:03:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Guan"}}-->

 Done. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 10:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-22T10:45:00.000Z","author":"DatGuy","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-DatGuy-2017-06-22T10:45:00.000Z-Guanaco-2017-06-21T23:03:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Dat Guy"}}-->

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Port-au-Prince Soccer Massacre, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Legacypac (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-25T04:03:00.000Z","author":"Legacypac","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Legacypac-2017-06-25T04:03:00.000Z-Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Draft:Port-au-Prince_Soccer_Massacre","replies":[]}}-->

15:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)