User talk:Multichill/Archives/2009

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Multichill. 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.

Commonshelper

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for your note. SmackBot was dating PD-user Pd-Self and PD-user-retouched based on information from the content of the page, or the current month, but I've now switched over to use purely metadata from the API indicating when it was categorised. Tell me how this may be causing a problem and what commonshelper is. Rich Farmbrough, 22:45 2 March 2009 (UTC).

Keep it at User talk:Rich Farmbrough#Pause date bot?, i have a watchlist. multichill (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Latuff

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Careful, now, someone may think you were edit warring. Anyway, EnWiki is NOT commons, and the image IS defamatory. -- Avi (talk) 10:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Restoring the image just to say "it is used" is definitely against the spirit, if not the letter of the law. If anything, you should wait until the Commons deletion is finished. -- Avi (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm restoring the image because it was delinked. It doesn't matter for the discussion if it's in use or not in use. Commons:Commons:Scope is about possible use. multichill (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And Commons:Commons:Scope#Examples shows that this image is not in scope. Regardless. this is EnWiki, not Commons, and we have WP:BLP policies here. Defamatory images are violations of WP:BLP and will be removed. -- Avi (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Which example are you refering to? None of the examples seem to be relevant. The image is not defamatory so you can drop that argument. Did you read the whole deletion request? Quote from Mike Godwin: I don't think it's technically defamatory because no reasonable person would seriously believe that Dershowitz masturbates to pictures of destruction in Beirut. Dershowitz certainly wouldn't like this image, but Dershowitz also has a reputation as a free-speech lawyer. In the event of a legal threat, I could probably talk him out of it (we have friends in common), but I don't think there will be a legal threat. That said, I don't think it's a very good image that adds much to Commons. I'd personally prefer it if the community deleted it multichill (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have, and Commons, not having a BLP policy, needs a more blatant form of defamation than does EnWiki. Note, I have not reverted your restoration of the image to the gallery on Commons, pending the outcome of the DR. On Enwiki, however, we care to a stricter level (for example "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.") There exists the possibility of harm here. -- Avi (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt if you're right, but let's go for the easy solution. Could you please insert another image from Commons:Category:Carlos Latuff? Preferably some different subject than the images already there (animal testing? Birma?). I see you deleted my transfers to Commons (thanks!), but i notice you didn't include a link to the destination. Are you using some kind of script? At nlwp we included a direct deletion link for admins which includes the destination (example). Makes it a lot easier to trace images, maybe something for enwp too? Code can be copied from Commons:Template:Nuke. Thank you, multichill (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not certain I understand you. The Dershowitz image is accessible in the talk page where it is being discussed, instead of displaying, it is a hotlink right into the commons image. As for another image, I am guessing you are meaning in the Carlos Latuff article itself. Doesn't that article already have three other images from Latuff in it? If you clarify what you mean, I would really appreciate it. -- Avi (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Images now on commons

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sorry, I was doing it manually. I am bot-impaired and use no scripts whatsoever (other than admin rollback). I'll take a look at your code and see if I understand it. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Category updates

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

When you add {{Commons}} to the introduction for categories, please add it as the top line. By doing this, the page formats much better. If you reply here, drop me a note on my talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm doing this at 50+ wiki's and at the bottom turned out to be the best location for automatic adding. Feel free to move them to a better location, replacements are done in place. multichill (talk) 10:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, placing that at the bottom of introductions add a lot of white space. If you can change this I think it would really help, if not, a lot of manual follow on edits. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

New image project

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Bot moving images without sources

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for helping to move images to Commons, but there seems to be a slight problem. There are a lot of images in CAT:UCPD which lack essential sourcing information, but your bot moves them normally. Then they need to be tagged for deletion both here and at Commons. Could you somehow program your bot to reduce the number of false positives? The UCPD cats probably need to be gone through by hand for the most part; maybe just using the pages directly in Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons would make more sense, since then a human editor had to tag the image for moving? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Which unsourced image did i transfer? multichill (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I see you nominated File:2006-06-03 - Mei Xiang.jpg. What happened to Wikipedia:Assume good faith? The user claims he created the work himself and I have no reason to doubt this. It's very Common practice to only include a {{Self}} and a license in images and I see no reason to start nominating all of these files. multichill (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, don't files need both a source and a copyright tag? There are plenty of times that a {{Self}} tag is used but the image is actually taken from a different copyrighted source. That particular image could be the uploader's work, but it could be taken from an unmentioned website; it's hard to tell without more description. Maybe I overreacted; I saw a number of bot moves which had practically no sourcing, but it seems that most of their local copies have now been deleted by various admins (for example, File:101Farmerjack.jpg). I think that I may have a stricter level of sourcing requirements in my mind than many other users; taking a fresh look at this situation would seem to indicate that I was too quick to judge. My apologies; please keep up the good work. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, some of the images tagged with {{Self}} or {{PD-self}} might not be own work, but these images are usually quite easy to spot (account with very few edits, web quality, etc). I'm not willing to have thousands of images deleted because of this small set of images with false own work claims. multichill (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not; I'm not proposing that thousands be deleted. The ones in that small set should be deleted, but most are just fine. I was just concerned about images in that small set being moved, but I guess that it really is small enough that it wouldn't be too much trouble to deal with. Well, just keep up the good work! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

iw

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

See here : one hour.

Budelberger ( ) 02:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC).

Sorry about that. My bot was working on the wrong set and I noticed it too late. I will check the contributions to see if anything more went wrong. multichill (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Read here. --Budelberger ( ) 21:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC).

Why? multichill (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What if...

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Randy says I should ask you. What if we find non-free images on Commons, that really should only be at en:Wiki? Is there a bot or a template that will move them out of Commons but retain the image elsewhere? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Kanonkas asked me to answer here. As far as I know we don't have a special template/bot for these kind of images at Commons. I believe some admins just restored images for a moment and transfered them to enwp with imagetransfer.py in the Pywikipedia package, but i'm not sure. multichill (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a great tech guy, could you help me with this? There are some still-in-use unexpired or recently changed Scout emblems that the fair-use applies to, and I don't want to lose them because they are in the wrong place. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Meta:Using the python wikipediabot is your place to start. When you've set this up you should be able to use the imagetransfer.py i mentioned. If you run into trouble you can go to #pywikipediabot at freenode, but please first read the manual and try yourself before going there. multichill (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Commonscat in Category:Auto racing series

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

What is the reason for this edit? The right link is the older one. --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That's because Commons:Category:Auto racing series is deleted and the bot tries to find a replacement. The link was found at es:Categoría:Competiciones de automovilismo, this link was found at ru:Категория:Автоспорт. Nice interwiki mess not caused by bots, but by humans. multichill (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the bot is doing nonsense edits such as this one. Please fix the bot. --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Also a deleted category and an interwiki mess. Should be sorted out manually. multichill (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

commonscat @ ru.wiki

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi! Your bot is adding commonscat templates to en.wiki. Would it be possible to have the bot follow interwiki links and add the template to the Russian wiki as well? That would be helpful. Ru.wiki also uses {{commonscat}} template. Thanks! --Volkov ^(?!) 08:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Volkov, the bot currently works on only one Wikipedia, but it's easy to run the bot yourself. Just fire up commonscat.py -lang:ru -start:Category:! -always and wait a couple of days. At Commons:User:Multichill/Commonscat stats you can find a central place where we keep track of the progress. multichill (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Just fired up the bot to run at ruwp. multichill (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Female diplomats

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

When you added the commons category here, in a bad place for format purposes, you also moved the categories that are part of the CfD nomination. I don't believe that the bots that close the CfDs look for categories that have been moved. In fact this could explain an ongoing problem that we have had with closes leaving the categories in wrong categories. The result is manual end of month cleanup of categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't subst {{Cfd}} or fix those bots. Categories are always moved to the bottom. multichill (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your recent bot approvals request has been speedily approved. Please see the request page for details. When the bot flag is set it will show up in this log. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Bot function

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi; does User:BotMultichill just match up identical category names in WP and Commons and add the link to the Commons category? Because it has been adding the Commons link to a bunch of disambiguation categories (e.g., Category:Columbia), where clearly we don't want to link to the Commons category, since the Commons category is much more strictly limited to one of the meanings listed on the DAB page. Is there any way of getting it to skip categories that use {{category ambiguous}}? Thx. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Currently I'm running based on a database query. The matching is based on the fact that the name is the same. I already exclude tons of templates and will add the category ambiguous template to the list of templates for the next run. multichill (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And the list of possible errors:

multichill (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Commons in category

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A "commons" indicator was left in the Category-Stuart, Florida. Was this done on purpose? I've never seen a commons indication left anywhere but a place article. Student7 (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's actually quite Common. I keep some stats here. According to these stats about 71.000 categories at this Wikipedia contain {{Commons category}}. multichill (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)