This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
No I'm not. You didn't want autopatrolled which bothers us and your work can be done in minutes anyway. So that's exactly what I'm doing. - Alexis Jazzping plz14:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
You say: "You didn't want autopatrolled which bothers us and your work can be done in minutes anyway. So that's exactly what I'm doing." Are you hinting I should take the initiative to leave Wikimedia Commons?--Kai3952 (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
No. You can do whatever you choose. If you want to categorize files in an ineffient way using HotCat when the same work could be done in minutes with more advanced tools, that's totally fine. A bit eccentric, but who I am to judge. But in that case, you should really be autopatrolled so you don't clutter the patrol list. Alternatively, you could use the more advanced tools. In this case we'd still prefer to have you autopatrolled, but as your contributions would come in bursts instead of a constant trickle, they would be a bit easier to patrol. If you insist on your current path, yeah, I'm going to see what you are doing and if it can be easily automated, I'm going to do that. I am autopatrolled, so I don't clutter the patrol list. - Alexis Jazzping plz15:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The problem is you took my work away from me. If everything I've done is taken away by you, I don't know what else I can do for Wikimedia Commons. No work is like a punishment for a policy I didn't violate, because my instinct tells me: "I did something wrong."--Kai3952 (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@Kai3952: when you are doing work that can't be automated, I'm not going to take it away from you. For example, if you add Category:Red balls to photos that depict a red ball but have no mention whatsoever in the description, file name or other metadata of a red ball, I salute you! I can't automate that. You have to look at the actual image for that. If you add, for example, File:Bill Clinton.jpg to Category:Men wearing neckties, I once again salute you! I can't automate that. (a subcategory "Male politicians wearing neckties" may be a good idea..) This kind of work is harder, but more valuable because it can't be (easily) automated. - Alexis Jazzping plz17:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
So what you meant to say was...unless my account is marked as "autopatrolled", you will take away my work from me?--Kai3952 (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@Kai3952: I'm not beating around the bush. If you continue doing categorizations that can be semi-automated but your account is marked as autopatrolled, you will not be using your time efficiently but you won't be bothering our patrollers either. So we'd leave you alone. If you do work that can't be easily automated, you won't be creating a high edit volume, so you won't bother our patrollers a lot and we will leave you alone. If you started using tools so your edits come in bursts instead of a trickle, you'd also not bother our patrollers as much. If you continue making contributions that can be (semi-)automated slowly while refusing to have your account marked as autopatrolled, I will every once in a while complete whatever task you are working on. You have plenty of options. I hope you'll make a choice. - Alexis Jazzping plz18:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
But I did not make vandalism. Will you kindly explain why you say: "I will every once in a while complete whatever task you are working on"?--Kai3952 (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
If I really have plenty of options, you should communicate with me first. But now I see that you completed whatever task I am working on. So, that means that I should take the initiative to leave Wikimedia Commons. I don't know that you will take away my work from me. I feel that this punishment is extremely severe. I still feel desperate even if my account is marked as autopatrolled. I am sorry, I really am sorry...I regret doing what I did(which meant I should done what you say at User talk:Masumrezarock100#Re: About the recent rollback). Because I know, no matter what I do, you will to complete what I am doing on. I can't accept that everything I've done is taken away by you(which meant my contribution is meaningless).--Kai3952 (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@Kai3952: there is no reason to feel hopeless. These are the best options for you to end the conflict and continue contributing:
Allow us to mark your account as autopatrolled. I won't complete any work you do anymore. I won't follow you. Your contributions won't cost our understaffed patrollers any time anymore.
Switch to work that can't easily be automated, like categorizing photos based purely on what is in the image, not what can be read in the description and other metadata. I can't complete such work.
Either one is fine. I can't force you to make a choice, but I think it'll be beneficial for everyone if you do. - Alexis Jazzping plz20:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Did you forget? Time cannot be changed. Therefore, what has happened is irreparable. If I did nothing wrong, why do you need to complete whatever task I am working on, why did you not tell me first; so, this proves that I did something wrong.--Kai3952 (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@Kai3952: I don't know what you want. I just don't. It would be awesome if you would accept autopatrol and we could all move on. No need to worry about the past. This is a wiki. Anything can be repaired if needed. - Alexis Jazzping plz21:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Because at the time, I don't know at all. You did not tell me that you will to complete what I am doing. Until I noticed your edits, you had made over 800 edits. I asked you stop and I said: "do not do the same work as me", but you still made over 900 edits. Do you think there is something wrong with my edits?--Kai3952 (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@Kai3952: the only problem with your edits is that they're not autopatrolled. Are you willing to accept your account being marked as autopatrolled? - Alexis Jazzping plz22:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I still don't understand why you have to take away my work from me. Can you explain more clearly what you mean?--Kai3952 (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
When you make an edit, a patroller has to check your edit because you refused autopatrol. When I make an edit, it is autopatrolled and no patroller has to look at it. Because I did your work, no patroller needed to check it. If you accept autopatrol, the same will be true for you.
@Alexis Jazz: The reasons you explained are not the "real" reason(which meant what you said is not convincing). Before that, I never met any patroller who would take my work away from me. I made my first edit on 13 December 2012, and actually I started working on 26 March 2017. Until now, I have contributed more than 350,000 hand-made edits to Wikimedia Commons. Therefore, I still don't understand why you did my work. That's why I ask again and again. However, you say that you think Kai may be running some sort of assist or bot after all, but where is your evidence?--Kai3952 (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. enough - Alexis Jazzping plz 00:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
@BevinKacon: I guess.. Some are obviously crap, but even anything that looks okay we have seemingly no way to tell if it's own work or not. At least not without help from frwiki. - Alexis Jazzping plz15:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
They are now listed. They are grouped by resolution, so if there are any real works, they will be part of the same batch.--BevinKacon (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Important message for file movers
A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.
Possible acceptable uses of this ability:
To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.
The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Trespassing
@alecis Jazz That’s a bit arrogant of you .! A private property is a private property whether it is an ordinary property or monument historique- makes no difference. And laws have to be respected. It has been our home for over a decade and we have not had this before last year. Roadside photos of the building are fine and we accept that but NOT when someone intrudes into the garden area. As I have already stated there are ‘ Private property - No entry ‘ signs all around the boundary . So it does not need to be spelled out ! RobBoy1 (talk) 10:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
You don't have a problem with these photos. These photos (or very similar ones) could also be taken from the public road, they don't show anything private in particular. I would actually understand if someone was, for example, taking photos of your trash. The problem you have is trespassing and Commons is not your local police department. You can't file trespassing reports on Commons. There are no cops working here. - Alexis Jazzping plz11:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Apols for the name errors Alexis . Done in haste not on purpose I can assure you !!
Some views CAN be seen from the road b not others and THATis my gripe! You don’t seem to understand this since you don’t know the layout . You are clearly colluding with breach of privacy and it doesn’t give us much confidence in supporting Wiiki. Anyway I was previously chatting with two other people so not sure how you came to join the conversation?
You are wrong @Alexis Jazz. On street view you can ONLY see the external part of the building from the roadside and NOT the garden or approach which are the photos I am disputing. As I said this is not rocket science !
And fyi I have already tried to engage in conversation with the photographer who posted the pics on the Catalan site but they are not responding. If they photos of my garden (but the roadside photos are fine to stay on) I will escalate this further. RobBoy1 (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
@Eatcha: I haven't had time yet and see you already proposed it. This stuff is more complicated than you think and I'm still trying to figure it out. - Alexis Jazzping plz13:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Actually, it's gonna get implemented. If community rejects it, I can deploy a standalone MP4 to webm transcoder web app. I thought that you were busy with other stuff. I do understand that it is hard to change something in a community like commons. It's sometimes best to ignore, and implement what you want. Sorry for the hurry. --Eatcha (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Your reverts of my changes
Dear Alexis Jazz, you reverted quite a number of changes from me. Example: [[1]]. Did you check the mentioned OTRS Ticket before you did that? I was clearly under the impression that it is covered by the discussion I had within this ticket. Best, Dietzel65 (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Dietzel65: I have no idea, but the OTRS should be added by an OTRS member. Your edits were tagged by the abuse filter because you are not an OTRS member. I've asked Tulsi Bhagat to look at your uploads. - Alexis Jazzping plz23:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, to make a change if you have no idea is maybe not ideal. As is apparently the flagging. I got a warning message that I shouldn't to this if not previously discussed with an OTRS team member (which I did) and that this will be reviewed by an OTRS team member. Which would make sense. It didn't say that it would be tagged as abuse in general. Thanks for contacting Tulsi Bhagat. I am positive this will be solved. Best Dietzel65 (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Dietzel65: I actually do know that you shouldn't add the OTRS tag yourself. I have no idea if that ticket is valid for your uploads because I'm not an OTRS agent. That warning you got is not very accurate. OTRS added by a non-OTRS member is rarely a correct action. One problem with this is that we don't know if the ticket actually covers all the files you have added the OTRS permission to. @Majora: perhaps the message in the AF should be adjusted? - Alexis Jazzping plz23:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Was MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-otrs not the warning that was displayed? It says that unless you are explicitly instructed to add the tag by an OTRS member you shouldn't do so. If you have any suggestions as to improved wording I'm always open to suggestions. --Majora (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: the error is a bit broken. It says Error: {| style="width:90%; margin:0 auto; background:#fff8f0; and so on, ending in |}. - Alexis Jazzping plz23:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
That's...unusual. I had to log out and into my alternate account since I won't trigger that warning but I saw it. I forgot to take a screenshot of it though. Would you mind taking one and uploading it? It is a massive pain to log out and back into different accounts for me because of 2FA. I'll try to get to the bottom of that error. --Majora (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I saw the German translation of the warning only. I didn't see the English version. It says something like "You should not do this if not checked with OTRS" or so, similar to what you cited. I was under the impression that the if-clause applies in my case. Maybe it should be shortened to "You shouldn't do this" then. It also said "This will be checked by OTRS", so I felt comfortable in going ahead. I did not expect this to enter the general abuse category. But I can see now why Alexis Jazz reverted. Thanks for explaining. Going to sleep now and will see what developed tomorrow. Dietzel65 (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh! Yeah. The translated versions may be slightly different depending on who did the translation. I'd be happy to update the de translation if you have an alternate phrasing that would make more sense. --Majora (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Majora, after thinking about it, I believe the flaw is not in the phrasing, but in the logic. The phrasing (in both, English and German) suggests that in some special cases, a non-OTRS-person can enter the OTRS tag. But if done so (and in good faith) any such change is treated as abuse. This is just not consistent. Either the warning should state that under no circumstances a non-OTRS-person may add the tag. Then every such action can be rightfully treated as abuse. Or if possible the software could prohibit this. Or, there are actually cases where a non-OTRS-person may do this. Then any such change should not be put in a general abuse category, but rather in a 'to be reviewed by OTRS' category. Would you agree? Dietzel65 (talk) 10:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
@Dietzel65: the only valid case for adding OTRS permission by a non-OTRS agent I can think of is to restore OTRS permission that was removed by some other user. (but restoring OTRS permission is generally not tagged as abuse anyway, depending on circumstances) - Alexis Jazzping plz11:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Also, Dietzel65 the mechanism that we use to show these warnings and tag these edits may be called the "abuse filter" but that is just the name that comes from the MediaWiki system itself. We use it to tag a lot of things that aren't necessarily abuse but that may need additional examination. Having been logged under an "abuse" filter means nothing. I have logs under it, so does Alexis. In fact, it is hard to be here for very long without triggering something. I can see reasons why a non-OTRS member would add that tag so that is why it is a "warning" and not a "disallow" (which would stop the action entirely). Changing it to disallow would actually cause more damage in my opinion. --Majora (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Readding a tag removed improperly. Adding one to a cropped image (which not necessary doesn't hurt). There have been instances where OTRS agents themselves have asked the uploader to do it (it is not really done anymore as far as I'm aware but it did happen). Generally if a permission tag applies to websites we create a standalone template but if that hasn't been done yet or if the template was created and it was accidentally substituted instead of transcluded it would trigger that warning. The instances are uncommon, I grant you that. But there are instances. --Majora (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: I covered the re-adding above, I agree with that, though re-adding generally doesn't trigger a warning. (depending on circumstances) Adding OTRS permission to a cropped image.. Personally, I think there's no need. Even more so, permission was given for the original, not for the crop. The permission does include permission for crops and derivatives, but the actual permission was for the original. If a filename is mentioned in the ticket, that also won't match the crop. A new template that merely links the ticket "fyi" without being a permission template might be a solution. OTRS agents asking uploaders to add tags, as you said, is rare. If a template for a website hasn't been created yet, it should be created. If that template is accidentally substituted, it should be un-substituted. - Alexis Jazzping plz18:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry
I know you are against protecting your talk page but this has gone on for long enough and I've had enough. The protection will have to stay this time. I hope you can understand. --Majora (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: I was going to ask for you to re-protect. I want people to be able to reach me, and I even allow the vandal to insult me if that's what they want to do. But they can't restrain themselves even that much, prematurely ejaculating their crap all over the place. Sigh. - Alexis Jazzping plz14:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
They, have another well-established account, they use that to watch the page. Why am I saying this? 👼 and 😈 account are harder to detect than usual sockpuppies, it's one of the main reasons for supporting automation of check user tool. CUs don't check any request without diffs, or initial proof. Allowing a human to CU without proof is dangerous, but a bot that doesn't leak/spread personal information would be a very nice CU clerk. --Eatcha (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
As we found out at phab:T237177#5633372, TEM is actually the code for w:en:Temne language, a language with 2.5 million native speakers. (five times that of West Frisian or fy, which already has its own Wikipedia, Wiktionary and Wikibooks) TEM has no Wikipedia now, but with 2.5 million native speakers that could easily change.
Sorry for not being clear enough. Actually I suggested a new proposal for T instead of TEM (as 4n said). And about other namespace aliases that we discussed before (except CAT) and about other possible namespace aliases that the community wants. It seems we had some opposition and never had the true consensus. Discussions like these needs more participants and more time to close. Masum Reza📞04:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Lol, it existed? As far as I know, CAT redirect was created after a that proposal about the search box detecting namespace aliases. And then you created proposals TEM and MOD. Ahmad created proposals for UT. I am not aware of any such proposal. These days I rarely visit VPP. Masum Reza📞12:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
To be honest, I'd rather go for T: than TEM: now. Reason? 1. TEM: is a code for a language; 2. as what you've said in the proposal, WMF needs to go after several wikis for this T: thing. But my question is, would people oppose as talk pages of galleries are basically Talk:<gallery name> (T: makes more sense for that). 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 13:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at Wikimedia Commons.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. enough - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Scan_030_-_1952_Frankfurter_Dom.jpg&oldid=prev&diff=374190406){kind=link}
Done - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
