Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

User talk:~riley

(Redirected from User talk:RileyBot)


I don't bite, drop me a note here or contact me using an alternative method like rileyhuntleycaAt, or @countervandalism/Riley-Huntley (IRC).

I work in a spirit of COM:AGF with Commons images for deletion, as well as categorizing and sourcing images.

Please do not be offended if your images were nominated for deletion or even deleted. There are processes to provide copyright permission and undelete even images which have already been removed.

If you need a really fast response to a general question, please write at the Village Pump.


Thanks for this. However, as per my request i wanted to use my bot for it. Or is it recommended to do those edits with the user account itself? --Arnd (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Aschroet: Some people chose to run it off their main account if their bot is not AWB based; I was thinking you wanted the flag on your bot account but got confused because you made the request in your name. I'll add the bot in and then both have it for whatever you need! ~riley (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


This was not (more) a edit-war. I maintained the term "woonkernen" despite my objection (the source the municipality of Katwijk only uses the term "wijken"). I started a discussion with the user on his consultation page (see here). He said: I couldn't care less. Gouwenaar (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gouwenaar: Counter-productive back and forth revising constitutes edit-warring, I have noted his actions and made sure your revision was the last in place before protecting. This protection was to prevent him from further changing, not you. I will be monitoring the page after protection ends to ensure this does not continue. ~riley (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay thanks. Gouwenaar (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
No, no, no. Prevention should be in the last revision. Gouwenaar is a nice man, but now he is making a mountain out of a molehill. Maybe I overreacted a little, on the NL-Wikipedia and by mail I got attacked a lot last week and sometimes I have to get that out of my system. Nothing against Gouwenaar, I asked him to help on a page on NL-Wikipedia, but i.s.o. helping he is now taking sides and that's something else than helping someone. It's not nice for me, although I understand what Gouwenaar means. / About the file: "Katwijk only uses the term wijken", that's really new, I have sources that Katwijk uses other names, but because they often change things or don't even know what they are doing, it can lead to a discussion between user. With the text that is now on the page (with the file), it's fine by me. I will not change anything, accept if Gouwenaar does remove my text, but I don't think he does.- Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I will be direct in saying that I do not speak your language, however, that does not stop me from intervening with a situation as I deem necassary. Regardless of your stressors, your reaction on stricter wikis would be worthy of a 24 hour block. The way you handled the situation was extremely inappropriate and overally, childish. Looking past that, I am open to work with you both to come to a resolution for this. Begin a discussion on the talk page, be polite throughout and I can make a change as needed. If the file protection expires before then, the same rules still apply. If you'd like me to pull in an admin of your language, I can also do so. You're right, this is a mountain out of a mole hole. If you both can't decide on the right word, don't use it. ~riley (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I work here voluntary for years, without pay (as most of the contributors here) and now you say my action (or actions) would be worthy of a 24 hour block (on other wikis). Because I know Gouwenaar from NL-Wikipedia, I was holding back a little. Has Gouwenaar complained anywhere, I cannot find it, but I will if it is so. Don't treat me like this, you understand me? Thnx a lot - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Let's continue this on your talk page, it is clear there is an issue of understanding the community's expectations for how to appropriately address individuals.. with or without pay.. ~riley (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

User talk:AbdEdit

Please, don’t pursue an overzealous memory damnation agenda. When Abd interacted on that page, he was not banned and the content is hence legitimate. You may archive it, but may not delete without explanation.

There was also a discussion which concluded that disrupted user_talk pages are harmful for some day-to-day Commons business. Compare:

Where did you get an idea to redirect user_talk? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: Change it to how you would like, I will not lose sleep over how it is configured. The idea to redirect comes straight from enwiki, I matched his enwiki page out of an act of similarity, more than anything else. Before anyone says it.. No, that was not an attempt to drag enwiki drama here. You'll notice out of your four comparisons, only one has an archive. If you wish to step up an archive for one or all of them, go ahead; I won't stop you. WMF Office has established that a banned user's talk page can be cleared without archiving, there is no argument to be made that this is deletion without explanation. I have merely followed suit with what others have done. If you don't like that, which I respect, then change it to how you would like it. It's worth noting that my adjustment of his talk page, which hadn't been edited since 2015, will not harm any day-to-day Commons business. ~riley (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Sock puppeteersEdit

Thanks for you kind reply to the previous query, but I have also some criticism about your work with Sockpuppeteers. First, how are you sure that Hvslo‎ (talk · contribs)’s master is Meterrs? The former was rather evident sock of Bill Wong from behavioral evidences (especially before Taivo’s interference with the user: page), but affiliation of Bill Wong and Hvslo‎ to Meterrs is yet a conjecture supported by only circumstantial evidences, while check-users are not eager to do their job. If you are eager to make conclusions, then may you request check-user privileges for yourself first?

Second, you tagged five accs as “sock puppeteers”:

It is an established practice (both here and on Wikipedia) to block suspicious accounts as “socks” (of an unspecified master), but declaring anybody a sock puppeteer and placing the respective tag to the alleged master account requires a kind of reference to controlled accounts or IPs. If you are unsure about those, then how may you place such a tag? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I'll note that the template said "suspected", but that said, so that there is no interference, I have restored the deleted edits. Do what you wish with the page. The master, in my opinion, of all these accounts is not Meterrs, I'm sure you noticed that Meterrs is but a small note in the whole SPI investigation on enwiki. Yes, I have tagged five accounts as sock puppeteers; I had yet to create the categories hence why they were not automatically showing. Happy now? ~riley (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
    I had already a dispute with Yann on it. “Meterrs” merely denotes w:User:ConsumersDistributingonline but the latter name does not have account on Commons. Meterrs is (AFAIK) the first acc from the farm active here and that’s why is referenced as the master in Commons context. Creation of a user: pages for non-existent “master” user is, in my opinion, confusing because such page does not possess respective Special:Contribs and Special:Log links. Satisfied with your answer about five new sock puppeteers. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I politely disagree, but I also see where you are coming from. ~riley (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lou Reed & Wild Side friends; collage 2012.jpgEdit

You ask why it came to DR: it came to DR because at the time it had four copyright violations. Four separate copyrighted photos had been "released" into the public domain by the person who had assembled them, none with any licenses cited. While I figured it was likely we could get that sorted out, DR is a perfectly normal way to deal with copyvios. In fact, it's not at all unusual for someone to speedy them with {{copyvio}}. - Jmabel ! talk 02:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't actually looking for a response, but I appreciate it nonetheless. If you open a deletion request with a possible solution "If you re-license this appropriately, then I'm fine with it.", you're already opening the wrong type of discussion. This is what templates like {{disputed}} are for, or just open a discussion. By the way, you would have been allowed to close the discussion yourself. ~riley (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Deleted paintingEdit

Hello! This image was deleted before a conclusion on the talkpage. I just talked to the Astan Quds Razavi Museum and they told me the painting image can be freely used provided the curator is cited and they told me they can probably issue a written permit for that. --Expectant of Light (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "~riley".