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.

Tech News: 2016-20Edit

16:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


Hi! I missed your RfA, but would nevertheless like to give you my blessing. ;-) Good luck with the buttons. Trijnsteltalk 12:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Trijnstel: Thank you, means a lot! The main page is still intact after this time, so I think I might actually last as an admin ;) ~riley (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Brandon Thaxton ImageEdit

Hello Riley. My first WIKI submission was Brandon_Thaxton The image I submitted for Thaxton was deleted. Thaxton told me he took the picture. Any advice on re-submitting the image you deleted would be appreciated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshyates1980 (talk • contribs)

@Joshyates1980: Thaxton could not have taken the photo if he is in it. Even if he somehow did, he is the copyright holder and has not released the image under a cc-by-sa-4.0 license as you did. Please read COM:L. ~riley (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@Riley: Thank you for the link on copyright information for wikimedia commons. Is there a way I can edit the deleted photo and change the copyright, or do you suggest I go through the entire upload picture process again? Thanks for sharing your knowledge. ~joshyates1980 17:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshyates1980 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@Joshyates1980: Unfortunately, there is no way to change the file to bypass the copyright. The copyright holder for the media depicted is the photographer, and without their permission through COM:OTRS or evidence that the file has been published under a free license elsewhere on the web, the file will only be redeleted if uploaded again. ~riley (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@Riley:I can relate to this article: Wiki Editor. Ok, so I'll just reuse the image Thaxton has on his website. Hopefully that will work. Thanks ~joshyates1980 21:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshyates1980 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshyates1980 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@Joshyates1980: You cannot simply resuse images you've found on the internet, you need the permission of the photographer and/or the copyright holder (subject) to reuse these images. Please read COM:L before proceeding to upload another file. ~riley (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

Vitruvian Barnstar Hires.png The Technical Barnstar
Thank you for your diligent work of spamming my watchlist with your (useful) edits to my uploaded files. You are now nck-in-neck with Natuur12 when it comes to this kind of spamming. Keep it up! Josve05a (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


Congratulations! Task 6 was approved. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

API change will break your scriptEdit

Hi ~riley,

I noticed that RileyBot has been using http:// to access the API, rather than https:// Access to http:// is going to be disabled in a few weeks. You can find more information in this e-mail message. If you need help updating your code to use https:// , then you might be able to find some help at w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard or on the mailing list. Good luck, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Well thats a good sign.. only one of my bots will break. >:[] ~riley (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Please say you can help me. (I just tried to email you but it refused to do so.Edit

Hello. I had an account on the main Wikipedia site under the name of User:LouisPhilippeCharles, years past, I got blocked, I forgot the password to said account. I then (a few months ago) got into contact with an admin who was able to revive my account on Wikipedia under the name of User:LouisPhilippeCharlesNEW. I was eventually blocked on that due to the spiteful machinations of another user who has taken a huge dislike to me. I had uploaded several images under the name of LPC and eventually got blocked on here (not 100% sure why) I then emailed countless people, literally begging for help but was ignored. Out of sheer anger and frustration I set up an account with the name User:JustOneDay as I wanted to upload a coat of arms I had made (" Coat of arms of Marie Christine de Rouvroy (1728-1774), Princess Charles Maurice of Monaco, Countess of Valentinois.png") . I uploaded with the correct license and it has since been deleted (Again unsure why) and eventually that was blocked. I get the feeling that a user by the name of User:Courcelles has taken to deep dislike to me. In their defence I did rant a bit but again only because I felt like no-one would bother to help or even pretend to do so.

Alas I have come to you. Only really to be unblocked on from using the Comons. I don't really have the patience to time to deal with the bureaucracy of other Wiki projects. Plus I really enjoy the commons if I'm honest. It's rewarding to build up a category. Plus I've made at least 30 overall. But yes. Please say you can help. Signed Thomas Harding (Because I am actually a human being)

If you do reply please feel free to email me on (as I said my email refused to send my message.

Yes, please help me. 20:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the message. Unfortunately because all your previous accounts have been globally locked, there is really not much I can do. My best recommendation is to contact, I imagine you're going to need a really convincing argument though based on Category:Sockpuppets of LouisPhilippeCharles. ~riley (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw you had replied.

I really have no idea what to say in the email if I'm honest. I genuinely feel like whatever I do say will just be ignored. What should I say? I'm scared. =[

Does that email address cover the whole of Wikipedia then? Or just the commons? I'm confused. 19:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hello, that email address covers all Wikimedia sites, which means, all Wikipedias, Commons, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, Meta, and Wikivoyage. Well, since you socked at March, I recommend staying away first from all Wikimedia sites for atleast 6 months, then request an unlock by sending an email to the stewards. Please note that if you socked again, the chance of unlocking you will be lower and lower until it becomes almost impossible. Thanks, Poké95 00:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Just saw your reply. Ok 6 months. Could I have an email address of yours to contact you on just in case I need your assistance? I would just like to know there is someone there if needs be. A security blanket if you like. This is exhausting. I did try to email the above address yesterday but it refused. Not sure if my email is just loosing its grip and is just being stupid. Alas yes have you got an regular contact address at all? Because obviously I'll be shot down if I dare reply here. 11:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I will send you an email containing my email address. Poké95 11:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
If you wish to contact me as well, my email is listed on my user page. ~riley (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open!Edit

POTY barnstar.svg

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear ~riley,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2015) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

-- Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 09:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-21Edit

18:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Where the update to 10.12.2008 Needtobreathe.jpg ?Edit

Where the update to 10.12.2008 Needtobreathe.jpg ? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

fixed, thanks! :) ~riley (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You made a mistakeEdit

You reverted me the autoverified flag for "edit warring" but you made a mistake. The user who was edit warringwas the user Turnless, who whas warned yesterday by another sysop User:Blackcat who recognized that the bad and pointless reverts were the ones done by User:Turnless. In fact Blackcakt asked "him" to stop edit warring with a sound reason ("pointless reverts"). And you blocked "me" instead of Turnless, whose talk has "plenty" of complains by other users due to its easiness to revert. Congratulations: for you info, on I have admin flags so I know how things work. On, an action as yours against me would have been enough to ask for you to be deflagged. Have a nice day. --L736E (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Cool, but this isn't You both edit warred, and in turn, you were both warned. I know your an itwiki admin, and simply, I don't care. I did not block you, as you have stated above. Yes, I removed your right, autopatrolled (not autoverified) because you have demonstrated an inability to solve a dispute properly. Take this to File_talk:World_marriage-equality_laws.svg#Dispute_resolution because quite simply, you're wasting your time by informing me about how I'd be deflagged on itwiki. Want to talk about other wikis? Alright, if this was enwiki, you'd be blocked for edit warring and violating the 3 revert rule. ~riley (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The point is that Turnless is keeping a contraddictory behavior. My attempt was to achieve a "consistent" information across Commons maps. If you have a look at File:Same sex marriage map Europe detailed.svg, you will see that the user who posted the revision with Italy showing "civil union active" was exactly Turnless. So, on one file he accepts the situation, on another one he denies. This is my point. I was only attempting to keep things consistent and I stopped edit warring after Blackcat warned him. --L736E (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Respectfully, you've been told to take this discussion to File_talk:World_marriage-equality_laws.svg#Dispute_resolution where I have commented on the contradictory behavior you are concerned about. You stopped edit warning after Blackcat warned him because your revision was the current one at the time, so that really says nothing. ~riley (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I didn't ping Blackcat to ask him to support me. I pinged him to flag that there was and edit war and asked for mediation. And I didn't edit after his intervention. I wouldn't have done even if the revision of the filw weren't the one I'd like the most: I had left someone else to do it, in that case. I suppose that this is a way to "try to solve a dispute properly" (ask for someone to mediate). Respectfully, don't you think so? In any case, removing the autopatrolled flag after seven years of fair contribution without "fights" or "flames" with other uses, including a long history of flagging copyright infringements, from my point of view is simply excessive. --L736E (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Once again, you did not edit after his intervention because your version was still the most recent, so again, that goes to show nothing. From my perspective, to be frank, you went running to a friend for mediation and while doing so, you did not present a neutral case therefore the "mediation" wasn't much. You should have left the file in the state it was before edit warring began (which I did) and then directly spoken to the user on their talk page and/or the file talk page instead of both being immature and having a pointless edit war. You've had the autopatrolled flag for three years, let's not get caught up in "seven years of ..." As I said, its temporary removal and I won't be surprised if Blackcat readds it considering his involvement. Autropatrolled is irrelevant to patrolling, its not patroller. ~riley (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I did directly speak with Turnless on his talk page. I skip your alledging about "immaturity". It sounds simply out of place. --L736E (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Venezuela (1871).svgEdit

Most of the time, a coat of arms SVG cannot really be "derivative" of a GIF in any ordinary or usual sense. Please nominate it for deletion through ordinary processes, where its deletion can be discussed individually. AnonMoos (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, you can request Commons:Undeletion if you wish but I stand by my deletion. It was listed as a derivative work in the description, and the source of the derivative work was deleted as a copyright violation. ~riley (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
However, the derivative indication seems to have been semi-stupid (using the wrong template, to start with, and possibly not placed by the original uploader, though it's hard for me to tell, since the file is deleted). Furthermore, I can't see that the deletion of either the GIF or the SVG was ever discussed in a properly-notified deletion discussion focusing on those files, and so would appear to be out of process in some respects... AnonMoos (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Please read COM:CSD, both these images qualified for speedy deletion and were not out of process. As said, if you wish, you can request Commons:Undeletion. ~riley (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


Replying to Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-05#File:The_Royal_Norwegian_Navy_mine_countermeasures_ship_HNOMS_Hinnoey_.28M343.29_participates_in_a_small_boat_attack_scenario_June_13.2C_2013.2C_in_the_Baltic_Sea_during_Baltic_Operations_.28BALTOPS.29_2013_130613-N-ZZ999-103.jpg

There's three issues,

  1. I do not believe that OTRS tickets are needed for however many uploads may be affected (potentially several thousand). As linked in the UNDEL request, correspondence with DVIDS is published at User:Fæ/email/DoD#DVIDS, so there is no need to refer to non-public records when all of the relevant evidence, including DVIDS statements, are public for anyone to validate. A note could be added to the standard template, highlighting that the DVIDS FAQ exists, but even that seems excessive and is likely to be confusing as it would not apply to U.S. military employees.
  2. For other past deleted images, there would need to be a check that DVIDS is a source for the image. However as I'm not an admin, this would be excessively difficult for me to do, as I cannot read the deleted image text page, nor can I double check that a VIRIN match in the filename actually is the deleted image seen at DVIDS. This latter point may seem arcane, but there have been many examples of several images using the same VIRIN on DoD databases and only a visual human check is entirely reliable as the SHA1 checks are unlikely to match between an original defenceimages upload and a DVIDS current file as the EXIF is changed automatically by their publishing process.
  3. The consensus is not clear for other sources, such as images from military forces outside of the known U.S. coalition partners, direct agencies, or suppliers within DoD projects. Off the top of my head, I cannot highlight an image where that is the case, but at the moment even forces such as ADF which is a coalition partner is being argued/debated. The on-going debate gives me pause, as I would rather not invest my time changing templates or researching deleted files, unless this is stable and I know my work will stick. I am comfortable returning to this in several months if necessary (and depending on my availability), perhaps even parking it until I have sysop rights even if that takes years rather than months.

-- (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Fae I agree, no OTRS tag needed in this case. If you send me other past deleted images, I can investigate. ~riley (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "~riley".