Commons:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Shortcut: [[:]]

This bot has apparently not been properly tested and is tagging every image it finds remotely (as in maybe a 10% match) similar to some other image (including matches found on Commons itself with clear public domain licensing) as a possible "copyright violation". I believe it should be blocked until the creator of the bot can fix it. There have been dozens of messages left on the talk page of the bot and so far the creator has not only ignored every complaint but is continuing to run it, apparently with no changes or fixes since Sz-iwbot's creation.

Perhaps copyright violation tagging is best left to humans. GraYoshi2x (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would an admin stop it for now? It should have an exclusion list for stereoscopic views and coat of arms. -- User:Docu at 17:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Busy lets wait untill the operator responds. Huib talk 17:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usually on en.wiki, the de facto standard would be to first block the bot until the issues are fixed (or just indef it if that never happens). Right now all it's doing is creating problems and work for every editor to have to undo every frivolous tag, and so far I have seen absolutely nothing in the "list" it makes that is an actual copyright violation. In fact the extreme majority of tagged images are all public domain, half of which are indisputable! GraYoshi2x (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous - blocked. The bot needs to at a minimum check file metadata/categories before looking for similar images.  — Mike.lifeguard 23:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition could somebody do a full rollback of the bot's contribs? It would save everyone else a lot of work cleaning up the mess this bot left behind. GraYoshi2x (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite a few cases that could be avoided, it seems to turn up quite a lot images that need to be looked into it. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sz-iwbot/tineye&oldid=25819681 -- User:Docu at 02:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, bot have stop. This bot only check similar images, human check copyvio. or only list? --shizhao (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion:

if (image_category!="Category:Public domain" && image_category!="Category:Coats of arms" && ...? ){
    check_tinyeye(image);
}
else{
    do_nothing();//or maybe make a list, but do not tag the images
}

 — Mike.lifeguard 14:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lot images in PD, is error license, not real PD.

Now:

if image=".jpg|.gif|.png" then
    check_tinyeye(image);

else
    do_nothing()

--shizhao (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should just list coat of arms and the panoramic views stuff and tagg all others. In any case, I think it's an important check to have, even if tineye doesn't find everything. -- User:Docu at 07:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring SVG won't do anything. Why not just drop the bot? I mean after all, there's a 99% false positive detection rate here and all the frivolous tagging will overwhelm most editors having to undo every edit it makes. IMO the bot should be discontinued. Technology isn't ready for this kind of stuff. GraYoshi2x (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder where you get your statistics from. I seriously doubt the false positive rate is that high. I think Docu's idea of tagging certain categories of images, and simply listing others is a good way to address the problem, and should definitely be tried before we even consider throwing the bot away. –Tryphon^☂ 16:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at all of the bot's past contributions. 99% isn't an exaggeration. In fact I think we can bump that number up a point or two. Nobody wants a virus scanner with that kind of detection rate, so likewise, neither will anyone like a copyvio scanner like this on Commons. GraYoshi2x (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like User:Sz-iwbot/tineye page. I think bot is doing a valuable work, but I agree that we should not mark the images found as copyvios or as "need review". Some hits like this where images on other Wikipedias. I think we should let it run but change what we do with the findings. --Jarekt (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't why it has to tag the files themselves. What's wrong with just creating a list? I think some people have the wrong assumptions about the content here. A lot of it comes from somewhere else, and a lot of it is reused elsewhere. That's kinda the point. A large amount of our stuff is not user made. TinEye only search like 1% of the web but it's constantly expanding it's search. Yeah, User:Sz-iwbot/tineye is nice but not the senseless tagging. Furthermore, I don't think the owner is qualified to be checking for copyvios. Here's how well that human review works. His contribs are filled with actions like that... but this is for another thread, perhaps. Rocket000 (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now no tag coat of arms and PD-art? --shizhao (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pls, unblock this bot? bot also run checkimage.py--shizhao (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to it running checkimage.py, which it was approved for. But I think there should be request made for the approval of this TinEye function. I don't believe there is a consensus for it to be running, even if coat of arms and PD-art images are excluded. I do think User:Sz-iwbot/tineye is useful and no one objects to that but tagging each image doesn't seem necessary at all. Rocket000 (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's definitely reasonable & the bot should be unblocked so that can happen.  — Mike.lifeguard 14:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Unblocked & [1]. Hopefully, it won't start doing TinEye stuff automatically now. Rocket000 (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thx --shizhao (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referring from here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dagonweb#.7B.7BAutotranslate.7C1.3D.7Cbase.3DPlease_link_images.2Fheading.7D.7D I have been asked to make some kind of comment on my additions. I have no idea what exactly to do and when I click for more information I am supposed to read 6-8 pages of highly dense text. This won't do. Please implement a simpler point and click system, instead of this ... mess. I love contributing my work but if this system is put before me as a hurdle, I have very little issues with not making the contribution and not using wikipedia. I though wiki was free to use, but the current byzantine infrastructure clearly serves to keep out contributors.

I recently made acquaintance with Quentinusc (talk · contribs), who had this to say about my tagging of his copyright violations. It then came to my attention that he has a sockpuppet account, Quentinusc35 (talk · contribs). I don't know if this counts as abusing multiple accounts, but it looks like there are some copyvios under that account as well. It would be good if someone else would be willing to review them. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping?

If the reason this hasn't been dealt with is that it wasn't specific enough, let me try to elaborate: File:Rck.jpg, the scale-down duplicate File:Rck91.jpg and File:Unvez kelt.jpg have big watermarks suggesting they were taken from http://rck1991.org/site/photos.php, and File:Paris 2.jpg has a big "SRP" watermark. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We currently have a massive backlog of unclosed deletion requests going back over 5 months. Furthermore, a lot of the requests are utterly trivial, including things like obvious copyvios, requests by uploader and other things that really should've been speedied in the first place (like this one).

So, I'd like to issue a challenge to all the admins here: go to Commons:Deletion requests/2009/03, pick a dozen still open requests and close them. Feel free to choose the easiest and least controversial ones: just getting those closed will let others concentrate on the more tricky closures. And, once the pickings from March start getting thin, there's still Commons:Deletion requests/2009/04 and so on... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are even older ones from July, August, September, October and December 2008 left. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the backlog buildup started when the format of COM:DEL was changed. Having recent requests out of sight means they're also out of mind. My impression is that this is reflected not only in the closure rate but also in the number of comments. Perhaps it's time to rethink the approach to make it apparent how big the itch is and to make it easy to scratch it. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's something wrong with the current process. It's something about the way it's organized or... I don't know, but it discourages admins to work on them. It's not a matter of difficult cases. As Ilmari points out, there's some that could easily speedy closed, but ::yet they stay open for months. It's like no one even saw them. Sure, we could use some more help, but there's a deeper problem than that. We need to rethink how we handle DRs. I blame a lot of the current status on the "Nominate for deletion" button, which greatly increase the number of requests we got (it made it easier than speedy requests). The action of closing is not an issue (since DelReqHandler came along), but reviewing them in the first place is. Our process isn't ideal for the volume we deal with. I don't have any ideas yet, but change in itself could help motive. Rocket000 (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The pages themselves aren't the problem, they're usable enough.... but they get lost and it's not clear how bad things are. Maybe we need a tally board or something ? I see another issue in that there aren't enough comments for a clear consensus. I tend to shy away from closing 3-2 or worse, 2-1 or 1-1 (well, I know it's not a vote) discussions. So I don't, because there's other stuff to do. ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably hundreds of deletion requests in category:Deletion requests are incomplete. A subpage is created, but not listed in the log, and the uploader is often not notified. The cause of this maybe that popups are blocked. Cannot the script be redesigned so that it does not need popups? Or could a bot collect these DR's at the end of the day and attach them to the log?

Because it is so easy to press the delete button, people do this instead of using {{Duplicate}} or {{Bad name}}, sometimes for very minor spelling errors, often without giving a link to the replacement file. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also: because a new deletion log page is created every day, deletion requests do not show up on watchlists. I think that is different from how it was before. Now people do not !vote because they do not see other people's DRs. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a good point: too much structuring and making of new pages of those requests makes that they disappear from people's watchlist (for CfD's too). Pop up blockers create strange effects: my (rare) deletion request tend to insert the deletion request twice. To put such (sub)pages on your watchlist, one has to edit the relevant subsection and hit the watch button: complicated and you have to do it at each (right) level. --Foroa (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Deletion requests August 2009 works pretty much like a watchlist. How about putting each deletion request subpage into a monthly category, so that these can also be watched through a "recentchangeslinked/category:<categoryname>" link ? Teofilo (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monthly categories are unnecessary for that, as everything is transcluded to the monthly pages: Special:RecentChangesLinked/Commons:Deletion requests/2009/08 works just fine - if you restrict it to Commons: space only, you get an ideal list. As for the backlog, perhaps we should handle deletion requests that should have gone through the speedy deletion or unknown tagging processes instead like they had been put in those processes, and close them accordingly even if there have been no comments to gather any sort of consensus.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enja (talk · contribs) uploaded a bunch of PDF files in some other language (Spanish? Portuguese? Something else?). Can someone take a look and determine what they are for? I have a funny feeling they are worthy of deletion. Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 11:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These files appear to contain lists of works of es:Juan María Robles Febré and are referenced near the end of that article. The article has been stable since the last edit of the uploader on 1 July.[2] Files in pdf format are in scope if the format was "selected for convenience of printing" (COM:SCOPE). Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean they are the uploader's own work? Wouldn't that make them original research at es.wp? Or are they works by Juan María Robles Febré? Wouldn't that make them copyvios? Wknight94 ^talk 15:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information field says, "trabajo propio (own work)" and I haven't seen that disputed. They appear to contain lists of works, i.e., bibliographies. I assume that they are verifiable and we assume good faith unless evidence exists to the contrary. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to change the comment of the first upload of

• File:Ulm_Tiergarten_Hängebauchschwein.jpg and
• File:Wappen_Euerbach.svg

so that it uses "Author={{User:HAH/AuthorStamp}}" instead of my real Name? --HAH (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I made some changes, could you please check it and see if this is what you mean because I'm not sure if I understood you correctly.

Best regards,

Huib talk 15:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really what I ment. My name is still visible in File:Wappen_Euerbach.svg#filehistory. I would like that it disappears there also. --HAH (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is the file history. We can't change it; we can only delete the page itself (including the file). Your name is also visible here. I'm not sure of the purpose of changing "HAH" to "User:HAH". Rocket000 (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not renaming "HAH" (But my REAL Name !!!) to "User:HAH". Can you rename File:Ulm_Tiergarten_Hängebauchschwein.jpg to File:Ulm_Tiergarten_Hängebauchschwein_tmp.jpg and File:Wappen_Euerbach.svg to File:Wappen_Euerbach_tmp.svg. So I can upload it again with the correct comment?--HAH (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

There is no need to start screaming we are all trying to help you but we are all human and misunderstandings can happen.

I don't think its a good idea to rename those file on a temp basis, renaming means we need to global replace all uses, and when you are done it need to happen again so it would cause a lot of edits.

If I understand correctly you want your real name in the author place and your username out of the history?

Best regards,

Huib talk 16:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my intention was not to scream, but to emphasize it a bit. It is not necessary to global replace all uses, because I will upload it not more than 5 minutes later again! And yes, I want to delete my real name out of the history. And thank you for your effort to help me. I really appreciate it. --HAH (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's my fault for misunderstanding you. I suggest reuploading them (with the same name) and we'll delete the old versions from the history for you. Rocket000 (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict

I understand it now, but the problem is if we delete the files we will trigger a bot to remove all the images globally but I have the solution (I think):Please reupload the files under the same name (upload a newer version) and I will delete the old file from the history. That will solve the problem if I am correct :). Huib talk 16:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will upload them now. --HAH (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --HAH (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are done also, is this what your mend?

Rocket great team work ;)

Best regards,

Huib talk 17:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you very, very much. --HAH (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, I am glad we could help you :) Huib talk 17:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man, when are we going to get that ability to delete revisions without having to do all that? It's seems so silly we can restore selectively but not delete selectively. :) Rocket000 (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can delete file version selective but we that will mean that his real name is still in the diff that comes with the upload :(

Attack images or vandalism can we delete selective, but it would be great to delete a diff if it contains vandalism or things like that. Huib talk 17:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a side note: you can delete images without having CommonsDelinker delink them. See m:User:CommonsDelinker#cite_note-0... Lupo 14:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. Thanks. Rocket000 (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all of the files in Category:Images from the Deutsche Fotothek, year 1580 are from a book of Georgius Agricola, Berckwerck-Buch, I have created a category for it, see Category:Berckwerck-Buch. As far as I understand this batch-editing with a commons delinker command could be done only by administrators. There are five files, that are not from Agricola, for instance File:Fotothek df tg 0004391 Astronomie ^ Komet.jpg, all with the number "0004...." - they have already a better category. So this hidden category can be deleted. (I hope I have written an understandable English - I am not to fluent in English, and I am new to the Wikimedia Commons.) Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: as far as I understand now, this hidden category Category:Images from the Deutsche Fotothek, year 1580 should not be deleted Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ich glaube, Delinker funktioniert hier nicht mehr da die Bilder bereits kategorisiert sind - leider mit Kategorien wie Category:Scans oder so. Ich könnte dir mit Autowikibrowser alle Bilder in die Berckwerck Kategorie schieben, die 5 müsstest du dann rausfiltern. --Martin H. (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done 264 files in Category:Berckwerck-Buch, all categorized (?). --Martin H. (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame someone moved all these images to Category:Scans. These images should probably all be moved to the relevant book categories. Multichill (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, wunderbar! - die Kategorie: Fotos deutsche Fotothek aus 1580 ist doch eine temporäre und könnte weg, wenn alle Bilder sinnvoll kategorisiert sind, oder? - Das ist mir nicht klar. Cholo Aleman (talk)

Once Category:Images from the Deutsche Fotothek needing categories is empty, the temp cats will be removed. Multichill (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

99.226.115.81 (talk · contribs) nominated a lot of Spanish maps. This includes images previously kept and heavy usage maps. Could someone please have a look at this? Multichill (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This anonymous IP address belongs to a Canadian ISP in Toronto. The particular editor using it regularly files deletion requests for historical maps. However these maps are perfectly acceptable on Commons, according to COM:NPOV. If he is unhappy, he could just tag the description page with {{Fact disputed}}. He also did some disruptive editing by undoing a deletion request closure, see [3]. Sv1xv (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished translating the upload form into Romanian. The resulting pages are listed under "Components" in the User:Andrei Stroe/Upload file localization page and need to be moved to the MediaWiki namespace. For this, I need help from a sysop. Thanks.—Andrei S. _Talk 12:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pages are not perfect. Maybe you need some more time. :) Kwj2772 (msg) 12:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do I need to improve?—Andrei S. _Talk 12:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Uploadtext/ro" layout is really outdated. Kwj2772 (msg) 13:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I'm changing that layout. I will still ask you to please move the other translated pages from the list to the MediaWiki namespace. They contain no layout, just localized text strings (and the dropdown licenses) for the "roownwork" page. As soon as the Uploadtext/ro page is done, I will return.—Andrei S. _Talk 15:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I finished rewriting this one, too.—Andrei S. _Talk 16:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Moved 'em all. Thanks you for your translations, and if you discover that you mistakenly made a mistake during the editing, feel free to put {{Editprotected}} followed by your correction on the talk page, and an admin will correct it in due time. I have kept all redirects for your convenience, if you want to have them deleted, then either ask here again or put something like {{speedy|legacy redirect}} on them. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to delete this picture, because the filename and -description is wrong and I uploaded a correct one. Thanks--Ticketautomat (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Sv1xv (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Is it possible to undelete pictures? I posted a bunch of pictures for astronomical objects that were missing for use in their articles about two years ago. Then, last April, they were deleted due to concern of permission, but since I don't log on here often, I only noticed this a couple weeks ago. The owner gave permission via email which I believe I provided back when they were first posted. I no longer have that email account, nor the photos. The supplier would probably be annoyed at having to provide them again and give permission over again. The deleted pictures are:

• Image:NGC281.jpg
• Image:NGC 2174.jpg
• Image:Rosette nebula.jpg
• Image:NGC7000.jpg
• Image:Lagoon Nebula.jpg
• Image:NGC 7538.jpg

Please assist.

Thanks.

WilliamKF (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't happen to remember where you provided the owner's permission, would you? I couldn't find any indication of it in the deleted image histories, nor in your contribution history here on Commons. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you forward your permission to OTRS? If so, we can ask a volunteer to find them. --Dereckson (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just searched the OTRS system and I was not able to find any reference to "User:WilliamKF" or any of the image names. If it was sent to OTRS I might be able to find the e-mail if you can let me know what the e-mail address the permission was sent from was. --J.smith (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sent email to J.smith with my old email address. Who was the author of the photos? I don't recall, but will ask for permission again from them if you can look it up for me. Thanks. WilliamKF (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really ok to upload images of books as "the uploaders own work", like File:Volume 1 of 2 by Travell and Simons.jpg? I have doubts about this, but I am not sure and would like to know, because otherwise the image should be deleted. 81.236.6.77 19:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. In this case, it is difficult to say that anything on the picture is copyrightable. It would be a copyvio if there was an image on the cover, or if the text was reproduced on the picture. --Eusebius (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about File:FrontDaviesColor.jpg? 81.236.6.77 19:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the cover illustration could be copyrighted, it would need a specific permission. --Eusebius (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that all images uploaded by Kaseyng53 (talk · contribs) are showing "©Copyright 2009 Money Economics. All rights reserved."

The user is showing in the uploads the source link, for example, Wachovia asset liability.jpg shows a source of the direct image link ... but the page on that site where the image is used is here, at the bottom of which is the copyright text. All other images loaded by this user from that site share the same issue.

Does each image need to be individually tagged, or can a single report here be sufficient to have these eliminated as copyright violations, or is there a different page to which I should post this concern? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just tag them with the copy-vio speedy delete tag. A friendly administrator will be around shortly and take care of them. Seems like a fairly common sort of copyvio. J.smith (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to avoid needing to take the time to tag all 20+ individually, as there were six sources involved, so not a simple copy-paste to all of them. But following your advice, I went ahead and tagged them all. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As some may have noted by now, the loss of the Commons database from the Toolserver has broken a number of bots and tools, including CheckUsage. Hopefully things will start working again soon, but, given how essential CheckUsage is to many admin tasks on Commons, and given that no actual date has yet been set for reimporting the Toolserver database, I felt I should try to do something to let folks here get things done in the mean time.

Thus I present to you the Quick and dirty CheckUsage script. It's not nearly as fancy as Duesentrieb's version, but it's robust enough to keep running even if it's missing a bunch of databases. The usage should be pretty much self-explanatory, as long as you follow the instructions. Oh, and the source is here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With filenames containing spaces, it only substitutes an underscore "_" for the first space in the name - hence fails to find the file used anywhere. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not so quick. I think this is more slow than Duesentrieb's version. Kwj2772 (msg) 02:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works well now :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Ok, not so well (besides problem with multiple spaces). When giving it a list of multiple files the results are rather erratic. Seems to depend upon the order the files are listed (those on end of list more likely to be found), how many found on any wiki depends on order too?? I can't put much faith in the results :-( --Tony Wills (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the underscore bug (*slaps forehead*). The limit of 50 results total per wiki is architectural; I could fix it, at the cost of making a few more queries, but didn't really feel a need for it when I wrote the first version,since the usual question I have when running a multi-file usage check is "are any of these files used anywhere?". In any case, the script does issue a big red warning if it bumps against the limit. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to work. I ran it with the input "W.E.F. Britten - Alfred, Lord Tennyson - St. Simeon Stylites.jpg‎", e.g. File:W.E.F. Britten - Alfred, Lord Tennyson - St. Simeon Stylites.jpg, a file I know is used repeatedly on en-wiki and commons, at the least. It found nothing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You had some invisible Unicode characters in the title. I should probably add some filtering for those. Anyway, this link works just fine. Oh, and I fixed the 50-result limit — the counts reported in the summary should now be exact. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. I wonder where the unicode came from: I copy pasted (though I forget from where) Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just fine? It finds the uses on en-WP and en-WS, but also gives the following error for the Commons: "SQL connect to commonswiki failed: DBI connect('database=commonswiki_p;host=commonswiki-p.db.toolserver.org;mysql_read_default_group=client;mysql_read_default_file=/home/vyznev/.my.cnf','',...) failed: Unknown database 'commonswiki_p' at ./checkusage.pl line 146". Lupo 13:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For File:Chinese character Shang oracle 目 mu4 eye.gif (input "Chinese character Shang oracle 目 mu4 eye.gif"), it does find uses, but the 目 is replaced by �›� in the result list and in the textbox. Lupo 13:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was a weird one. Fixed, I think. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to get your tool as a tab on image pages? --Leyo 14:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While Duesentrieb's tool is broken, I've temporarily updated MediaWiki:Extra-tabs.js to use mine instead. (Clear your cache if it doesn't appear for you.) If you want my version as a separate tab in addition to any others, you could add something like the following to your monobook.js (or modern.js / vector.js depending on the skin you use):

if (wgNamespaceNumber == 6) addOnloadHook(function () {
    var url = "http://toolserver.org/~vyznev/cgi-bin/checkusage.pl?files=" + encodeURIComponent(wgTitle);
    addPortletLink("p-cactions", url, "Q&D CheckUsage", "ca-qdcheckusage", "Vyznev's quick and dirty file usage checker");
});

—Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first method works fine, thanks. --Leyo 16:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second method too. Thank you very much! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the copy of the Commons database on the Toolserver is working again, and the authentic and original CheckUsage™ is working again. I've reverted my changes to MediaWiki:Extra-tabs.js. Of course, anyone who wants to keep using my version is free to do so (see the code above). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Kwj2772 (talk · contribs)
• User talk:Kwj2772#Your move
• Commons:Village_pump#Title of gallery disputed

I have a problem with the new admin who was primarily elected for aiding Korean editors with his Korean ability. I'm also questioning as to whether Kwj2772 has enough communication abilities in English as an admin. After creating and organizing galleries/files/categories related to Korea (I've uploaded 1/3 or 1/4 images of the whole Korean-related images on Commons), I've acknowledged that Korean named galleries and file titles are broken on browsers without installation of East Asian characters or UTF setting. So to increase non-Korean readers' accessibility, I moved 김치 to Kimchi (which is an "English" term), 대구 to Daegu and 경주 to Gyeongju, the latter two of which are South Korean cities and Romanized as such in a primarily used Romanization. Another Ronamization method exists but that is mainly for North Korean subjects, and English Wikipedia follows the naming convention. The Korean titles are only recognizable for Korean readers, and in South Korea, Korean readers do not know or rarely use Commons.

However, my edits were immediately reverted by Kwj2772 (talk · contribs) with these edit summaries reverting or reverting. multilinguality should be respected. See COM:LP So I checked on the directed page, but only could confirm that page is a proposed guideline page.[4] Moreover, the titles have many "ambiguous" meanings in Korean and do not correspond to the titles on Korean Wikipedia such as ko:경주시, ko:대구광역시. So I visited his talk page and asked him to show his rationale and "existent consensus" by Korean editors or the community as well as a right place for discussion on the matter. However, from the beginning, he started attacking me in a very rude Korean and falsely accusing that I'm self-righteous, having an ownership issue, bringing up a subject that would be a waste of time for discussion and making nonsense as well as jumping to a conclusion. That is his first answer to me, full of attacks. Kwj2772 has been insisting that the proposed guideline should be on first priority over Romanizied names and English titles. Regardless of his childish and rude attacks, I asked him to write down his argument in English and to be civil because I've wanted the discussion open for everyone not just Korean readers and he is an admin that should be on a higher standard of civility. I suggested several examples that Commons' primary language is English and Commons does not support the "ideal multiliguality" like there is no non-English category and non-English/Romanized names are subjects for renaming. However, he kept ignoring my requests and brought on irrelevant matters in also very uncivil tone. I wonder the only reasons that he wrote his argument in Korean are that his English is not good enough to communicate (wondering how come he could be elected as admin?), and his rude tone could be not shown to non-Korean speakers.

Further problem is that he brought the matter to Village pump (regardless of my several requests for directing to a right place for discussion) to bash me with a full of mispresentation. The opinions there show that that is not a policy nor guideline and I don't see any consensus or support for his insistence. However, today he even moved the galleries that I created, Buan to 부안 and Jinhae to 진해 which are also incorrect titles for the subjects. I think his behaviors are inappropriate as an editor, but also an admin, so I've brought up this to your attention. --Caspian blue 13:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Trolling from Caspian blue (talk • contribs). Rocket000 (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, another example of no-notification. When I asked him to direct a right place for discussion, he repeatedly refused to provide it. However, his forum shopping to the two places without notification to me is so contradictory to his own insistence on "Commons' convention". His lying and mispresentation of my comments should be stopped.--Caspian blue 20:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know where to put this comment, but since it's mainly directed at Caspian blue, I thought I'd post it here (but maybe the VP would be better since I think we should focus on the content part of this dispute).

Yes, it would have been nice if he notified you, but I'm sure someone else (like me) would have made sure you knew about it if it went anywhere. And you know now, so that's in the past. Both of you need to work through this and come to some agreement. I'm not blaming either one of you for turning this into a user issue. Maybe it's even justified, but I can't see how pointing fingers will help anything (it's not like anyone's going to get blocked or desysoped). Asking for a third opinion is a good start. If you want to hear mine it's summed up in COM:G#Naming_conventions:

Unlike naming categories, where English is almost always used, galleries should be named in language most associated with the subject. This applies to people, places, art, culture, etc. For general subjects and ones not tied to any specific language, the name most likely to be searched for (usually English) should be used. An exception to this rule is the naming of galleries of organisms and subjects where Latin names are considered universal. These follow the same guidelines as categories and should share the same name.

I know this was based on a part of COM:LP, which isn't a guideline or policy yet but mainly because it's not complete yet. Not because it doesn't have consensus. In my experience here on Commons, this is first time I heard someone object to this. And that's fine if you do, but laying out your arguments on the talk page of either COM:G or COM:LP would be a better approach than arguing with edits and reverts. While I think consensus is on the side of Kwj2772, it is not a strong consensus and definitely not an absolute policy, and thus this advice pertains to Kwj2772 as well, especially since Caspian blue was the original creator of these galleries (I'm not implying any COM:OWN, only precedent, similar to how on en.wp the argument of British/American English is solved by looking at what the first editor decided to use).

As for communicating in English, don't worry about that so much. Users don't even need to speak one word of English to participate here. Those of us used to working in a multilingual environment know how to use translation tools on the web. He's only a en-2 so the underlying tone and subtle meaning would probably be lost on some of us regardless of the language he uses. Rocket000 (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the mature, kind and helpful advice unlike Kwj2772's personal attacks and trolling. The places you've suggested me are what I've wanted to hear from Kwj2772, but he refused answer it and engaged in incivility. The only reason I could know his bashing against me on VP is that I recently asked a question to the place, so it was on my watchlist. The other forum shopping of him was informed by your liking to the page. He not only blatantly disregards my assessment and opinion, and attacked me by treating me like a crap. I'm deeply disappointed by his trollish behaviors/personal attacks/incivlity which only could degrade the general images of admins here who are genuinely helping others. I've known that if he informed me of a place to discuss on the matter, our discussion would be used, so that's why his wording should be in English, however, he even lied that I asked you to answer in Korean. I really don't think that he is a suitable for doing admin jobs as long as he is resorting incivility and POV pushing and falsehood.--Caspian blue 22:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am deeply disappointed of Caspian's distortion of fact. I just pointed that I was disappointed with your statement saying "Ownership claiming". And you said Most westerners do rarely set their browser setting in UTF-8. Wiki default encoding is UTF-8, what is more needed to set encoding to UTF-8? I clearly said. And I didn't see you creating Korean redirects, in this point, "calculating accessibility" is nonsense. Kwj2772 (msg) 11:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kwj2772, I'm deeply wounded by your harassment campaign by forum shopping to two places without notification to me. I'm deeply wounded by your deliberate distortion of my comments and the discussion. "I did not see you creating Koran directs"? Do you think that excuse would be for your defense? You said Westerners should install CJK characters instead of making the gallery pages more accessible to them. What you were responding to me were total nonsense and fallacious. I've demanded you for a place to discuss and you attacked me instead. That is not what admins would do. You intentionally picked up galleries to move to what you want without a consensus or discussion settlement. Do not engage in such malicious behaviors if you want to resolve the issue with me. You're supposed to be helping editors, not harassing.--Caspian blue 12:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, let's stop the personal attacks and the like and let's get to some solution instead of continously attacking the other person. It's getting us nowhere. Neither is Caspian blue trolling, nor Kwj2772 abusing the admin tools. For example, an admin abuse would be to protect the page from moving, so that you can't revert it. Kwj2772 has a point that the language and the gallery guidelines are kind of consensus here, though they might not yet be made something official, but consensus isn't always written in stone. Considering what you said, I can see your point. Some people might not see the Korean coding. But this is at all just some technical problem. We also don't try to get things working with HTML and CSS, just because some people don't have JavaScript. As for this case, maybe it would be possible to create some template like {{Switch title}} so that people that don't have Korean characters enabled see the English variant. However, I have no idea if that's possible at all. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is basically image-based project, so the degree of communication skills here are not much expected like other project. However, if admins were failing to abide by the civility rule and assuming good faith but pushing his POV unilaterally and harassing people who seek their help or a compromise with discussion, then they are not qualified for the admin privilege. --Caspian blue 00:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where can tags be defined? And where does one define how to tag an edit? Special:AbuseFilter? I'd like to set up a tag marking all Image note edits (should be possible since these all have a link to the gadget's talk page in the edit summary), but none of the existing tags listed at Special:Tags seems to fit the bill. Lupo 15:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you can just define a new AbuseFilter rule using the tag you want, and it will automatically appear in the list. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'll try that. Lupo 15:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You may want to see the filter here. Kanonkas (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but darn. I did one too, and now we have two. Special:AbuseFilter/47. Could you please merge them (mine is supposed to also catch changing or removing an image note, but yours excludes some user groups), and then delete the other that's superfluous? Lupo 15:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted. Yup, your code is better. I had forgot about the whole "changing/removing" bits, which explains why the filter didn't include it. Kanonkas (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And how do we get rid of the extra tag with the underscore now? (Looks like a bug in that extension...) Lupo 15:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I don't think I've seen that before. Maybe we should ping Werdna about it? Kanonkas (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More like a missing feature, I think. Technically, the tag has matched two edits, so it belongs in the list; getting rid of it would require an explicit tag deletion interface. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still a bug. The tag description page for one also applies to the other because the MediaWiki software treats underscores and blanks identically in page names. Lupo 17:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that does seem buggy. And, come to think of it, it could get even worse if someone were to create a tag whose name ended in "-description"... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess that would just give a tag descripton page ending in "-description-description". Lupo 06:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've created a second filter intended to catch image notes with small rectangles. Please see MediaWiki talk:Gadget-ImageAnnotator.js#Small notes. Is there any way to make AbuseFilter automatically post a template at the user's talk page? (The warning feature of Abuse filter doesn't fit the bill, it would effectively prevent saving the note.) In that way, we could ask them automatically to find out whether they did that intentionally. Lupo 06:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image is exact duplicate of File:I-470 (KS).svg adn it is superflow and useless.--69.229.39.33 20:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of dictionary do you use? Anyway, this was all you needed to do. We'll get to it. Don't worry. Rocket000 (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not exact duplicate, there seems to have been a little bit of an reversion war and so this one was uploaded as a separate version. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I asked what dictionary he uses. I never heard of someone using "exact" to mean "similar". Rocket000 (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too cryptic for me, I thought that was just an uncharacteristic dig at spelling (what is superflow ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is done locally or on Meta but I'm posting here anyway. I was working on some template stuff in my sandbox and got the following error:

There wasn't a single link on there. I had to stick a nowiki in there just to post this. Now besides the fact that someone screwed up and wrote a terrible filter, why can't I, being an admin, save? Rocket000 (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Had the same experience every now and then. What's most stupid in this, is that you don't get that warning when you click on Preview, but only when you click on Save, and to make it worse, you loose everything of your edit. --Túrelio (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So this isn't anything new. No wonder I can't find any recent changes (including on Meta) that would do this. Rocket000 (talk) 07:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's meta I think or even higher up. Hopefully they won't mind my little trick :D, but this is ridiculous. It's CSS. The example given here seems to be exactly what I tripped. I can't understand why they would block everyone by default. I mean, people can use CSS legitly. What's the purpose of blocking admins? Are they worried they'll start spamming? Rocket000 (talk) 07:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, in case anyone was wondering what exactly I was trying to do with that CSS (which shouldn't matter), you can view the full code here (now try and save that). No "hidden" elements to hide spam in. Rocket000 (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For information there is a request here. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also the village pump concerning this kind of advertising. Kanonkas (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate you withdrawing that tone - it is considered courtesy to announce such requests & has been for some time. Not what I would expect from you. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply anything bad and/or arrogance with my tone, sorry if it sounded as such. However, I do see this as "advertising" the community to vote. As long as I've been here, I've never seen a CU request being "placed" as this on AN and VP on Commons, which is why I was surprised to see one now. However, I wasn't aware that such notes were usual to do during CU requests on Commons. I guess this was a misunderstanding on my part, but calling it lack of courtesy is harsh, IMO. I'm entitled to make mistakes/misunderstandings, so are others. --Kanonkas (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) Hmm, the recent election of WMF board trustees was "advertised" on every single page over all Wikimedia projects. So, why should it be a problem to invite the community for comment about a request for a job that really needs to have broad support in the community? --Túrelio (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps going forward we should make it a practice to more widely publicise (including here, the VP, and elsewhere) 'crat, OV, and CU elections, as they tend to be somewhat rarer than admin elections. ++Lar: t/c 15:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the practice. It has been here, it was on Wikibooks over two years ago. It is on all other wikis I have been active on. En wp even intrude on watchlists with it. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If people are forgetting it's the practice (I did) and suggesting we make it the practice, maybe we need to note somewhere (on the guide to requesting the perm?) that it's the practice? ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too. However, I think only for CU/OS requests. Maybe we should ask the community for their view on this, or should we try being bold? The latter is probably less bureaucratic, IMO. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 20:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been policy for longer than many people have been here, in the event of doubt please see the Meta page particularly here. The user requesting CheckUser status must request it within his local community and advertise this request properly (village pump, mailing list when available, ...). That section goes back to 2006 at least. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. No worries on that part, however this is only for CU/OS, right? So.... I'd say just do what Lar said above, that we should note this. As far as I know, RfB's do not fall under this clause. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 12:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why it should not apply to anything other than admin requests. Particularly when pages get moved around and so may be hard for people to find (unless it is pointed out to them).

This project is a community one - it should be treated as such by those who seek to be influential in that community. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could say the same thing about RfA's, yet we do not advertise those. I hope we won't start advertising RfA's. In particular, CU/OS are more sensitive, which may be one of the reasons why we should advertise those requests. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 16:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you didn't actually read or maybe understand what I wrote above. I fail to see why it should not apply to anything other than admin requests. in other words I do not see it should apply to admin requests. However it would seem courteous to the community to ensure they were aware of any other requests so that they could comment if they wished. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, announcing things like RFBs would be a good thing I think. Or do similar to Meta/Simple WP, and link them from recent changes. For example, I missed your RFB, Kanonkas. Majorly talk 22:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it was or wasn't a practice before, let's agree to make it a practice, going forward, for all requests other than admin, that is, for 'crat, OV and CU requests, that these be advertised. If common practice pages (like "how to make a request" pages) need updating, let's do that too. ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Lar/Majorly - looks like good practice to me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about we create a template with links to all current votes and important discussions? This could then be included on many pages. At least that's how it's done over at de.wp, see de:Vorlage:Beteiligen. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask me, I'd say just put them in a closable sitenotice. Requests for Crat, CU and Oversight are important, and telling from my own experience, I haven't even discovered the usual admin requests for a long time, unlike the Board of Trustees Election, the Relicensing or the Poty, which were in the sitenotice. And if the people don't care for it, they can just close the sitenotice. -The Evil IP address (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've always liked the Meta approach too. RfAs and any others are shown on recent changes (for those of us who are that way inclined ;)) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really fond of putting too much stuff in the sitenotice and bugging loads of people who don't really care about this stuff. Putting this in the Sitenotice makes the Sitenotice pop up every time another candidate comes or goes. People who don't want this will have to close the Sitenotice over and over. I think people should decide on their own whether they want information about what is going on and getting this information should require activity by the person interested in the information. We should just facilitate obtaining information and providing it in a centralized place instead of having users go through a handful of pages where changes are announced. One single page (or template, doesn't really matter) featuring all the main community discussions is IMHO the best way to do this. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 02:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Chris on that point. However, don't we already have such a page (Commons:Requests and votes)?— Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 07:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that page is rather large and its structure is not really optimal for checking whether something has changed. Also it does get quite some non-vote-related edits so watchlisting this will alert you more often than neccessary. I was thinking of a pretty small page wich is only updated when new votes are started. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently had my name changed from "Ijanderson977" to "IJA" on English Wikipedia. My name currently on Commons is "Ijanderson977", however I would like to change it to "IJA" so it will correspond with the English Wikipedia; also for the same reason as I had it changed on English Wikipedia, which was to make my name and identity more private. Where/ how to I request for my name to be changed on Wiki-Commons? Regards Ijanderson (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You can file a rename request here. If you need any help, I will be glad to try assisting you. Kanonkas (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, can you check if I have done it right please? see it here [5] Ijanderson (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename taken care of. --Kanonkas (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this as it may or may not need administrative intervention, please advise.

71.8.199.1 has created a series of categories and is currently recategorizing images relating to various American highways. I personally am not understanding the recategorizations or why certain categories are being created to begin with and for the ones involving certain California highways in the San Francisco Bay Area, the recategorizations are actually more confusing to me. I'm wondering if anyone with some knowledge in this area can take a look at this user's edits to determine whether or not they are useful. Thanks. --BrokenSphere 21:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This editing pattern has been carried over from wikipedia, see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism#User talk:71.8.199.1 for more.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello~ I would like to use the dump data of wikifiles include commons and articles. I found the download page, however I couldnot find a document tell me attributes of data elements.

As I am trying to make a small service using the data, I would like to know about it.

I would like to enter the IRC to ask some question about the files. However, I fail to access the site because of the connecting problems in korea.

Could anyone tell me where I can get the data elements attributes of wiki dump files? thisis the page I download the files.

Although I could guess some of them, I have no idea on some of the files specially, image.sql.gz file on commons file

Whible (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same request for 2 other files in Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Question. Now I found more files:

Could you please delete the first version of these files:

• File:BlaubeurenKlosterHochaltar.jpg
• File:BlaubeurenGebaude1.jpg
• File:Cicadidae_Thailand.jpg
• File:Kaloula pulchra 2.jpg
• File:KlosterBlaubeuren2.jpg (Version 1+2)
• File:Oberelchingen Staustufe.jpg
• File:Ruetschenhausen_Fronleichnahmsaltar1.jpg

Thank you very much. --HAH (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. I think deletion is not necessary. Just leave them. (However, Any admin can review and reverse my decision.) Kwj2772 (msg) 10:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Support. I don't want my real name shown. Its something about privicy. Could you please? --HAH (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will perform revdeletion. Thank you. Kwj2772 (msg) 11:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All  Done except the last one. Please check if my deletion is correct. Kwj2772 (msg) 11:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the deletions are correct, but why didn't you do the last one also? --HAH (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted Your real name removed. If you change your name to AuthorStamp template, I will delete revisions also. Kwj2772 (msg) 14:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK Kwj2772 (msg) 14:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much !!! --HAH (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all!

I have not enough understanding of the technical side of the renamings of DjVu files, I have made mistakes twice in the last 24 hours, so it is better that I ask for your advice about remaining or not an admin here. I am a literary person, what I can be useful for is the cultural side of renaming, the creation of rules to name djvu files (I know well that field and other fields on fr.wikisource, en.wikisource, multilingual wikisource, I am an admin on the three of them, a crat on one of them, and I have participated in the building of lots of portals or in the creation of lots of books in the Page mode). But yesterday I renamed two books of 400 pages each without understanding clearly that the 800 pages would have to be renamed too, somebody stopped that in time and somebody explained the mistake to me, but it is better that I don't do these renamings any more. --Zyephyrus (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that Zyephyrus has done over all a good job as an admin. The errors can be corrected, that's not a big deal. So I proposed that he stays admin. Yann (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Anyone who realises that they make mistakes is unlikely to go far wrong as far as I am concerned. Please stay & help out where you are happy to. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• We all make a few errors in good faith. No one seems to have been harmed by this. A learning curve is natural. Durova (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all of you for your encouraging words. --Zyephyrus (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If you seriously don't want to be an admin at Commons anymore, you can ask at the Meta page for adding and removing permissions or drop any steward, including me, a note privately, and your bit will get removed. But in my view, what is required of a good admin at Commons is not perfection, for we are all of us human and none of us perfect, but rather the willingness to learn from experience and to clean up any inadvertent messes one causes, as others above say. Thanks for bringing this up. ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Lar, so I will stay. --Zyephyrus (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete the copyvio revision of File:Ashley Roberts.jpg uploaded by Pedro Ivo Caldas (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user and re-block the user, who apparently failed to learn from their previous block. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Martin H. (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the contributions made by this User. Probably not own work. Thanks. --Fabiano ^msg 23:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --Martin H. (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

p.s.: Evidence for sockpuppetry of a user I blocked before, thanks for the note. --Martin H. (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem in two images of German Mark coins here and there that needs to be fixed. Probably due to little knowledge of the English language the template {{PD-Deutsche Bundespost stamps}} was used. Therefore the images are wrong licensed and wrong categorized at the same time. -- Ies (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I often create image description pages before I upload - For one thing, if you have a list, say:

• File:Related file 1.jpg
• File:Related file 2.jpg
• File:Related file 3.jpg

And click on them, you get an edit page, not the upload page (Try it!). So it makes more sense to set up the information first.

Until you go to upload, and our idiotic scripts are unable to take into account that the page is already created, so filling in the blanks is pointless.

Try doing a large batch upload under these conditions. PLEASE FIX THIS. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be looking for MediaWiki talk:UploadForm.js. Lupo (talk · contribs) appears to be the usual maintainer of that page. With any luck, he can suggest an override you can put in your personal Monobook.js. Wknight94 ^talk 01:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a temporary fix, all you can do is go the way over JavaScript hacks. AFAIR submitting the form manually (not using the button) should work. If it does not, block JavaScript for Wikimedia Commons. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 02:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, if you write [[File:Related file 1.jpg]] instead of [[:File:Related file 1.jpg]], you do get the upload form instead of the edit page. –Tryphon^☂ 09:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but when it is uploaded, you get the full image showing up on the other image's page. Not good! Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about reupload links like

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=File:Related_file_1.jpg&wpForReUpload=1
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=File:Related_file_2.jpg&wpForReUpload=1

You must give only a description like "upload" or at least one letter. --Martin H. (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue with Martin's solution is that the re-upload link doesn't appear anywhere when there is no image. If you add

importScript('User:Pruneau/ReUpload.js');

to your monobook.js, you'll get an extra link in the toolbox in the left column to (re-)upload the file in all cases. Pruneau^talk 17:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

user [6] uploaded pictures seems to be in exif-data HP psc1600, what are scanner / printer, please check the pictures--Motopark (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1970s photographs can hardly come directly from digital cameras ;) --Martin H. (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Scanning software can also produce EXIF data. You'll notice there are no fields for camera parameters, like focal length, apperture etc. Sv1xv (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK to me--Motopark (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

person who are in the picture, are marked an author in next pictures, what are your opinion about those pictures.--Motopark (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that part of those pictures are published in Picasa album and author are TKrisa--Motopark (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note of inquiry and have watchlisted Fugue II (talk · contribs) talk page. His/her contributions look like copyvios to me. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is in the topic. Since the feature was activated recently, and since most notes added by new users/ips are either:

• Blatant vandalism or 'I was here' tagging. (eg: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:DholeT.zoo.jpg&action=history )
• Non useful note. (eg: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Panneau_south_park-b.svg&diff=27417795&oldid=23475096 )

Of course, some edits are legit, but still the tool just can be abused.
As Commons don't have specialized antivandalism bots, and as it would be difficult to prevent annotating since any language could be used, can the opportunity of disabling the gadget for new ips or users be discussed.
Esby (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to endorse restricting the add note to autoconfirmed users. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone look through the contributions of User:ELMER1071? There seem to be some unlikely claims of "own work," such as File:Municipalidad Antigua.JPG and File:Tru-metro.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 00:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

same name for DIFFERENT pictures may someone FULLY separate File:Husarz.jpg and File:Husarz1.jpg ? in history File:Husarz.jpg has the same picture as File:Husarz1.jpg - so I'm afraid that some one will revert File:Husarz.jpg to its older version :-( both pictures are important just one picture is the first quarter of 17th century (File:Husarz.jpg - new version), and the second is the third quarter of the same century (File:Husarz.jpg - old version) please, solve the trouble! 212.116.227.156 01:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]