User talk:Fæ/2013

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Mmmm chips (130966899).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Mmmm chips (130966899).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Senator2029 12:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Taken with HTC Desire HD

Hi,

I notice that you've tagged some pictures, for example File:Memorial to Thomas Noon Talfourd in Shire Hall Stafford.jpg, with Category:Taken with HTC Desire, though they were taken with an HTC Desire HD, which is a different device. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah thanks for pointing that out. I'm not sure Commons has categories for these variations, I'll double check. --Fæ (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I've just created Category:Taken with HTC Desire HD. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll look at also creating Category:Taken with HTC Desire HD A9191, as the data is in the EXIF, it may as be used as accurately as possible. I'll redo these shortly. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much variance there is at that level. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll investigate a little more. The EXIF metadata makes the distinction, we can merge the category using VFC or hotcat easily enough later on if it's not worth it. --Fæ (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

From what I can see so far, differences between the models (such as A9191 and A9192) are on the basis of connection speeds and software upgrades (there may be regional variations too, I have yet to find a spec sheet). This may be worth keeping separate categories so long as the EXIF data makes the distinction, as software variation might influence photograph quality or the effects that users might apply to photographs while on the phone memory. Hopefully someone with an enthusiasm and knowledge can add a good description to the categories at some point, unfortunately the en.wp article does not explain the variations in any detail. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I've asked at en:Talk:HTC Desire HD#Variants. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Xeno-canto

I wonder if Commons:Village pump#Xeno-canto birdsong is something you might be interested in tackling? Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Not right now. I have yet to get into bot batch imports, having relied on other people. It's something I'd like to add to my skills. As I never did get Flickrripper working on my macmini, it rather put these things on the back burner, hence defaulting to using Flickr2Commons. There always will be oddities that the new GLAMtools will not tackle, so knowing how to scrape someone's website/catalogue for metadata and cleverly hack the imports would be a handy trick, I just need to set aside a few weeks of Python programming time and the API to work it all out.
On Friday I'll be in Aberystwyth and part of those discussions will be an 'official' donation of 250,000 images. Given something like a 6 month window to look at it, that would make it worth my time to improve my skills. :-) --Fæ (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks - and good luck with that. If you know of anyone who might be interested, please give them a nudge. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Fæ, Please see here and here. Although I was reverted, but you might be able to use the information provided in my post for your incoming appeal. 76.126.143.35 20:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Bloomington

Thanks for putting together the script! I've just finished going through everything, and I only found one page that I shouldn't have included in the list, so you definitely didn't have much time wasted. Nyttend (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Scope?

I had brought up Category:License plates of Alberta in other fora. If someone brings up the argument of deleting files to save storage space, point them to that category to get started with DRs of near duplicate files; many of which are not useful.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Open Source Ecology - LifeTrac - Fabrication Drawings.pdf

Hi Fae

I've uploaded some open hardware resources to commons, one of which is behaving badly. The thumbnail and the preview page are both broken but the file works file when you download it again. Do you think it's just because it's a big file? I've tried re uploading it twice but no change.

P.S super work on the categorisation of images

thumb|looks blank to me --Mrjohncummings (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is failing to render on the image page and the thumbnails of different sizes fail. When viewed full size, which then uses my browser's pdf viewer, it works. PDFs are a special wrapper with media embedded within them,I suspect the pdf is not quite behaving how Commons expects. It might be worth me getting AdobeAcrobat to 're-wrap' the file by tweaking it a little or getting the file to encode itself in an earlier pdf standard. This will have to wait until I'm at my home desktop this evening (stuck with my netbook right now). The alternative is to recode it to a djvu file which is more open source friendly, though I have had mixed quality results with that in the past. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I have now fiddled around with this in AdobeAcrobat and tried re-processing the file (as downloaded from the source website, not Commons). It is viewable in AdobeAcrobat, but on saving is causing errors. The file is large and there is something a bit wonky about the format here. I'm giving it another go, but the problem may be with the source file rather than the Commons upload itself. --Fæ (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done I managed to re-compress the pdf, the previous version was strangely large and the current one is only 10% the size. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Wonderful, thanks very much, I'll have to learn how to do that. Mrjohncummings (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

  1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
  2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
  3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 09:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

Funny characters

Please note that you seem to add funny characters in file category names that prevent Hotcat and bots to move it properly, such as for example File:Nothoprocta pentlandii - Andean Tinamou - XC112727.ogg. It might be a good idea too to replace redirected categories immediatly with the right ones too. --Foroa (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This was a work around to get past some other problem, I didn't realize that hotcat would hiccup over it. Now fixed by replacing the code for a space, with a space for everything in the xeno-canto category. Thanks for pointing it out. --Fæ (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

File:All-bran cereal ad.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:All-bran cereal ad.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} ALE! ¿…? 09:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Fæ. I was surprised to see you didn't have the rollbacker right, especially considering your volume of work. I've added it to your acct in case it comes in handy. Take care. INeverCry 00:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I was surprised too, I guess I never missed it as I rarely revert anyone else on Commons. :-) --Fæ (talk) 10:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Help needed from anyone watching my talk page

Any ideas on why File:Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts WOTR4866.jpg is not displaying on the image page for me? It's been a few days since I experienced a Commons 'outage' and the others uploaded in that time are all working now. I'm loathe to re-encode it as I would prefer to keep the digitally identical version (with the same SHA1 value) as the National Parks Service have made available in their archive. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Fæ. I just wanted to give you a quick thanks for this uplifting little pic you brought to Commons a while back. INeverCry 00:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

FIlenames

You've been uploading scads of files to Commons. This is good.

You've been giving them unintelligible non-human-readable names like file:1880.jpg and file:Cecil Beaton Photographs- Political and Military Personalities CBM1666.jpg, and cutesy but useless Flickr-sourced names like File:A Glimpse Of The Near Future.jpg and File:Cry me a river.jpg.

I politely request that, when uploading files to Commons, you take the time to give each one an intelligible, distinct, descriptive, human-readable name. Even if you feel it's crucial for the filename to reflect provenance, there's nothing stopping you from including that as a parenthetical clause. Is File:Cecil Beaton Photographs- Political and Military Personalities CBM1210.jpg a photo of RM Drummond, Emir Abdul Illah, or Madame Sun Yat-Sen? Answer - none of the above, it's Arthur Coningham. There is no way for a human to know that without looking.

If you cannot figure out what the subject of a photo actually is well enough to give it a properly informative and human-readable name, then I suggest that perhaps you should not upload it. DS (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, always welcome. I have renamed 1880.jpg to File:86 The Side, Newcastle; birthplace of Cuthbert Collingwood.jpg as an obvious oversight; this upload was back in July 2011 - a year and a half and half a million edits ago - I am not doing things the same way now.
In the case of File:Cecil Beaton Photographs- Political and Military Personalities CBM1666.jpg the name is useful in its current form as if you Google it, the *first* match will be the IWM original database record, it is as described by the IWM and the CBM1666 is the unique reference they use, not just a meaningless sequence number. There is no policy for putting a unique reference in parentheses in file-names, I could do this but I think it just makes the name longer for little added value. If a file has an obvious much more meaningful name, that preserves this ability to find the original source and unique identity, then I am happy to rename in line with File renaming and this is far easier and more likely to happen after I have uploaded to a handy and easy to understand category, which itself can help describe the contents of the images. The Cecil Beaton photographs are not better structured in term of the original IWM record, but all the data from that source I am importing into the file description. If I spot a handy common structure, I can mass rename based on that data. For example File:Cecil Beaton Photographs- Political and Military Personalities; Abdullah, King of Jordan CBM1666.jpg and File:Cecil Beaton Photographs- Political and Military Personalities; George II, King of Greece CBM1587.jpg are better names, preserving the structured name from IWM but adding the notable person identity. This information is structured and available in the Subjects field under Associated people and organisations so I will consider if a mass renaming (by my computer making automatic suggestions and promoting me y/n or using my own rename for each file) is viable once the upload is complete; I would rather get these up on-wiki along with as much of the original metadata as possible, as a first step, with tolerable names and then work on minor improvements.
I mildly disagree that cutesy names should always be avoided, there is nothing terribly wrong with Cookies, num num num.jpg (or whatever), if this was the artistic intention of the photographer and it helps the original source to be found; though I am not averse to others renaming if the logic of File renaming is followed. I would encourage others to get the rename right, you can apply for it and it is no big deal if you have reasonable editing experience - Commons:Requests_for_rights#Filemover. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 07:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done The notable subjects in the Cecil Beaton category have been renamed using this semi-automated method. --Fæ (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

File:A picture from China every day 151.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:A picture from China every day 151.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} DS (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

File:"Saxon" to the rescue - geograph.org.uk - 226804.jpg

Hi Fae,

The other day, I added most images of one of the geograph contributors to the category you added to the above image. I had skipped images such as the above as there the contributor is identified with another name. --  Docu  at 22:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. In the long term (several months away perhaps), I may re-run through all the geograph contributors again as quite a few have been partially skipped due to connection problems. I have a number of exceptions already built in. If the user has a preferred name, let me know how they would want their geograph contributions mapped (or skipped). I don't need to know any more than their preference, if there are privacy concerns here, please feel free to email me in confidence. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't know them so I skipped it "by default". The main reason I started adding them was that I found quite a few photographs of ships in their contributions. --  Docu  at 22:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I don't have any strong views on this. It would be easy for me to merge any unnecessary categories into whichever has the most images later on. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, in this case, I would create a second category for the 2nd name and revert the edits of your bot. --  Docu  at 06:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I think this means that I would create Category:Images by Aubrey Dale, move the current images over to there and ensure that future geograph user mappings use this name. To avoid confusion, a redirect category might be handy to be left too. Is this sufficient? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd just move the ones that use the name "Aubrey Dale", not the others. --  Docu  at 13:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I've paused the sorting I started and I'll return to this later on over the weekend and separate the two. If I do run the full geograph user sort from scratch, I think I'll just skip new images by this user as mining the page for what might be a variable author link does not seem worth creating special logic for. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I think I fixed most of it. Let's double check tomorrow when search updates. --  Docu  at 19:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
As a precaution I have removed this account from future geograph sorting. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Geograph again

Ok done re-analysis of the South West and found just 37 images. This translates to an error rate of 0.03%, compared to last time when it was 0.15%. Furthermore, I don't think any of those are avoidable. The specific images are listed below along with probable cause of the error.

Errors by county (37 files)

Cornwall images in Devon cat (8)

  1. File:Glimpse of the Tamar - geograph.org.uk - 677808.jpg - Data limitation
  2. File:Looking along Calstock Viaduct - geograph.org.uk - 703129.jpg - Data limitation
  3. File:River Tamar at Saltash - geograph.org.uk - 51118.jpg - Data limitation, MapIt failure
  4. File:Saltash, The Royal Albert Bridge. - geograph.org.uk - 222422.jpg - Data limitation, MapIt failure
  5. File:Steam across the Tamar - geograph.org.uk - 749259.jpg - Subject/camera error
  6. File:The railway stops here - geograph.org.uk - 196150.jpg - Data limitation
  7. File:The Royal Albert Bridge - geograph.org.uk - 3933.jpg - Data limitation, MapIt failure
  8. File:Wilcove to Devonport - geograph.org.uk - 356086.jpg - Geocoding for background

Devon images in Cornwall cat (8)

  1. File:Devonport dockyard Plymouth from Wearde Quay - geograph.org.uk - 71608.jpg - Geocoding for foreground
  2. File:Gulworthy, the Tamar at Morwellham - geograph.org.uk - 95361.jpg - Data limitation
  3. File:Hooe Woods and the River Tamar - geograph.org.uk - 39042.jpg - Data limitation
  4. File:Kingford Mill - geograph.org.uk - 218012.jpg - Data limitation
  5. File:Lighthouse on Plymouth Breakwater - geograph.org.uk - 8427.jpg - Data limitation, MapIt failure
  6. File:Plymouth breakwater and lighthouse - geograph.org.uk - 1062778.jpg - Data limitation, MapIt failure
  7. File:Tamar Road Bridge and Gunnislake Branch Line - geograph.org.uk - 132641.jpg - Data limitation, MapIt failure
  8. File:The Tamar valley - geograph.org.uk - 606318.jpg - Geocoding for background

Devon images in Dorset cat (2)

  1. File:Headwater valleys of the Blackwater - geograph.org.uk - 478348.jpg - Geocoding for background
  2. File:Uplyme, the Old Black Dog and county boundary - geograph.org.uk - 983299.jpg - Subject/camera error

Devon images in Somerset cat (0)

Dorset images in Devon cat (4)

  1. File:Ammonites on Monmouth Beach, Lyme Regis - geograph.org.uk - 1186408.jpg - Data limitation, MapIt failure
  2. File:Ammonites on Monmouth Beach, Lyme Regis - geograph.org.uk - 1186417.jpg - Data limitation, MapIt failure
  3. File:Caravan Site, Monckton Wyld - geograph.org.uk - 171893.jpg - Data limitation
  4. File:Partridge by the hedge - geograph.org.uk - 482111.jpg - Data limitation

Dorset images in Somerset cat (3)

  1. File:Bridge over the former S and D Railway (2) - geograph.org.uk - 391084.jpg - Data limitation
  2. File:Near Tinker's Hill - geograph.org.uk - 327723.jpg - Data limitation
  3. File:Railway Bridge Under Repair - geograph.org.uk - 398362.jpg - Data limitation

Somerset images in Devon cat (8)

  1. File:By the East Lyn River - geograph.org.uk - 1306001.jpg - Data limitation
  2. File:Coscombe and Old Burrow Hill - geograph.org.uk - 565091.jpg - Geocoding for background
  3. File:Dulverton, cottages at Oldways End - geograph.org.uk - 245343.jpg - Data limitation
  4. File:Exebridge, Frozen pond near sunset. - geograph.org.uk - 85843.jpg - Data limitation
  5. File:Hoar Oak Tree - geograph.org.uk - 445973.jpg - Data limitation
  6. File:Hoccombe Water - geograph.org.uk - 974031.jpg - Data limitation
  7. File:Lane to Sampford Moor - geograph.org.uk - 161025.jpg - Data limitation
  8. File:Wambrook, stream in Bickham Wood - geograph.org.uk - 227164.jpg - Data limitation

Somerset images in Dorset cat (4)

  1. File:Across the county boundary - geograph.org.uk - 526093.jpg - Geocoding for background
  2. File:Mixed Messages - geograph.org.uk - 318803.jpg - Data limitation
  3. File:Sutton Bingham Empty Reservoir ^ - geograph.org.uk - 650469.jpg - Data limitation
  4. File:View to the reservoir - geograph.org.uk - 526092.jpg - Geocoding for background

Comments:

  1. The quality of the data is the biggest problem affecting 75% of these images. As discussed before, when the Geograph file is located to a 6 figure grid ref the location may be as much as 100m out, which affects locations close to borders (which all the above are).
  2. In some cases, the data quality causes MapIt to fail to return valid data. This is because instead of being for the correct location, the geocoding is for a spot at sea. As the sea is outside any county, MapIt won't return anything. The fallbacks then make the wrong guess (though clearly they get most coastal pics right).
  3. The remaining problems are either subject/camera error, or when the Geograph user gave the location for the background, when its the foreground elements that are more significant or vice versa. (eg this is best described as a picture of a beach, not of a dockyard, whereas this is of the dockyard, not those trees.

Only negative point is there are a number of files in two Geograph in county cats, for instance File:Footpath Between Six Acre Wood and Six Acre Farm - geograph.org.uk - 53996.jpg. I've excluded these from error calculation above, as this is a seperate issue. The bot using its current script ought to ID the right one to retain. Would be best if you do a quick run to correct these - this CatScan lists them.

Overall, everythings working and no major problems (apart from the double tags). Inevitably, the error rate be higher when the areas are smaller - like in the London Boroughs - but this is unavoidable, and will still be low.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for that hard work of analysis. I am really pleased with a 3/10,000 error rate, that's an exceptionally high quality outcome and far better than I was expecting; imagine Faebot patting me on the back for his good programming :-). The fix for double tags should not be hard, I can add a simple error trap to force there only being one, or if the numbers stay very low, creating an on-wiki report for human eyes to check over in case there are exceptional glitches (thinking of how annoyed I would be if I hand-corrected due to bad EXIF data on the file and the bot changed it back six months later). It will be a few days now, maybe more than a week before I kick off Wales in one big gulp. No hurry, my terrible internet connection has caused many drop-outs this weekend (the scripts don't normally stop, they are pretty robust now, but can glitch if there are several data brown-outs) and that makes a bit of a delay a good thing as I'll be upgrading to a fibre connection in a couple of weeks. Seems worth an extra 10 quid a month, shame the UK Chapter will not pay for it considering how useful reliable geocoding will be in the long run, especially when my time comes to take over the world by controlling an image of where everything on the planet is and was to a 0.03% accuracy. Hey, Sergey Brin should quickly offer us jobs before we step on his Google Mapped toes. ;-) --Fæ (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
PS Looking at the catscan list based on glitches between {Geograph images in Anglesey, Geograph images in Blaenau Gwent, Geograph images in Bridgend, Geograph images in Bristol}, I'll probably defer fixing these for the Wales job which will naturally address these boundaries and suck up the problem with the new error trap. --Fæ (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Help!

Hi Fae: I'm trying to add one of the sound files you uploaded from xeno-canto.org, and am having problems getting it to play. I've followed the directions to download the application I need to play .OGG files (I'm on a Mac, using Safari, QuickTime and iTunes). However, despite now having installed the XiphQT plugin, I'm not getting any sound when I play the file. (I can see that it's "playing"; the numbers count up/down to the end and then start over.) I can hear the recording just fine if I go to the source (on xeno-canto), but I'm assuming that's a different file type. Any suggestion as to what I'm doing wrong? MeegsC (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

This would be very hard to diagnose. I suggest downloading the file, rather than playing it in the browser, and trying a separate application like VLC.[1] The files on XC are MP3 files, so these would be using quite a different encoder. You might also want to try a different browser, you *might* find that a clean install of Chrome or SeaMonkey might use different plug-ins. Good luck :-) --Fæ (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Purple hand.svg

Hi Fæ. This image/symbol was tagged as no source. I've converted to DR. Can you take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Purple hand.svg? I wonder if a common symbol like this is eligible for copyright? Thanks for your time. INeverCry 21:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, I would assume that it is copyright-able as there is sufficient creative content for it to be more than simple geometry, or a natural feature being photographed (I would count it the same as any finger-painting). We would need to know something more about the source. I suggest the associated articles about the symbol are converted to use a copy under fair-use where possible. I'll not be voting on the DR as I hope someone makes a liminal keep argument, whereas there is not sufficient doubt in my mind to make a case. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I've commented there detailing why I was unsure about deleting this. Can you take a look at that comment and the image/DR I refer to? INeverCry 22:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

en:User:Sendmybosstospace

Hi Fæ, can you make any sense of this :en userpage? To me it looks like a possible attackpage (or a sort of outing). I am asking because he uses one of your uploads, in addition to his own. --Túrelio (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest this is a fairly straightforward apparent attack page and the user in question should explain themselves or expect it to be blanked. The policy of en:WP:UPYES is the one to argue against. I speak as an experienced past admin, though this is a matter for the current en.wp community to decide on, as I should refrain from interfering, or being seen to interfere from this project. If Commons is being potentially misused in some way, I would be happy to investigate that evidence further, and in a way that would not compromise any individual. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmation of my suspicion. I had it already reported to :en ANV an hour ago, though nothing happened so far. --Túrelio (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
No worries, if it were urgent then oversight could handle it quite promptly, but I only regularly (and quietly) used that option for blatantly malicious attacks and apparently under-age users doing the normal thing of putting in the name of their school and contact information, thinking that the pages could be used like Facebook. Not being an admin means I leave it to others to worry about now. :-) --Fæ (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll give you the last word on the edit summary ok ?

You make me smile, too much of that inevitably leads to an award :D

Penyulap ☏ 09:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Princess Merida photographs

Hi Fae - I see that you were the one who created the categories for the uploads of User:Princess Mérida, now blocked, which is why I'm posting here. This user has uploaded a number of images of horses, particularly those by photographer Heather Moreton, including File:Show Pleasure Harness Horse (7714704982).jpg, which I would like to use in an article. While I understand that there have been some issues with the images that this user uploaded (and that is quite possibly an understatement - I don't know the specifics of the case), are all of this users images suspect or subject to deletion? Are they OK to use in articles if the licensing checks out? If you are not the right person to ask, would you be able to redirect me to someone who is? Thanks in advance, your help is much appreciated, Dana boomer (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dana, the Princess account was blocked, but the user is still around, just limited to their "original" account for the moment as some admins thought some of their mass uploads were becoming disruptive, when they were creating lots of licence problems for others to sort out and didn't meet their own promises to behave better. In this case there's no problem with the images in this set about horses, as the licence on Flickr was verified and the images are from a credible looking Flickrstream. To be honest, so long as the licence looks good, you can probably just use common sense as to judging if the original source looks reasonable. The vast majority of the Princess' uploads were fine.
As for whether I'm a good person to ask, probably, I am a user trusted to verify licences and it has been pointed out that I do quite a lot around here without too many complaints in proportion. :-) --Fæ (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
PS Taking a little extra look at the Flickrstream, I notice that since upload to Commons, the licence on Flickr has been changed to non-commercial use. In theory these licences are irrevocable, but if you are planning on using the photo for a BLP or major article on Heather Moreton, it might be polite to drop her a note first, as a request to delete from the photographer (possibly due to an unintentional oversight on Flickr) might be treated more sensitively before the photos are in use on other Wikimedia projects, rather than afterwards. it's not a requirement, just a way of us being nice. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response! We're not using it on a BLP or article on Moreton, just a horse breed article where there isn't another acceptable substitute for a specific idea we want to illustrate. And her images are already in use on a couple of other horse breed articles (at least one of which is a GA, and some might be headed to FAC), so I wanted to double check to make sure we weren't going to have a problem with the licensing. I agree that it would be polite to let the author know that her work has been transferred here, though - is there a template or recommended wording for that sort of thing? Dana boomer (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
There's no standard, I suggest just using Flickrmail to send a polite note saying you are a volunteer on the project. In some past cases I just left a note on the Flickr image discussion thread, saying 'your image has been reused for the benefit of public knowledge at <Commons/Wikipedia page>, thanks for releasing on a free licence' or words to that effect, though in this case a more directed mail seems appropriate. Thanks Fæ (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Royal Air Force in the Middle East, 1944-1945. CM5762.jpg

Hi. I came upon this file and you might use the IWM template like this: {{IWM Collections|CM 5762|oid=205209112}}
which saves a lot of work. I might add that I find your photo name rather inconlusive (Royal Air Force in the Middle East, 1944-1945. CM5762) and probably would have named the photo "Spitfire PR.IV of 74 OCU at Petah Tikva c1944" or such. It think it gives others an easier chance to find a photo. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for highlighting the template. I know that standard credit templates are useful, indeed I am just in the process of sorting out one for the National Library of Wales. In this case, the existing IWM template I would prefer not to use as it carries an transcluded category. These are a headache for anyone using tools such as hotcat to move files into sub-categories or move somewhere else altogether, though I have seen similar where you can opt out of the included category as an optional parameter. For the 12,000 or so files I have recently uploaded, I have kept the standard template very simple, though I could re-visit them all and add a nicer credit, or upgrade to a special template that can include the same level of information.
I agree a lot of files have naff filenames, these are as the IWM have named them, though I would strongly recommend keeping the unique IWM reference, as anyone Googleing the name would find the IWM catalogue page as well as the file on Commons. If I do rename these, I would like to use information in the information box to generate it, this could then easily apply to thousands of files without a painfully large amount of volunteer time involved. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm more into pain, then... Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
:-D If I can help with some obvious mass re-naming, please do drop me a note, I'm quite handy with the tools. --Fæ (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, although I am on Commons for years, I have no idea about bots or so. I might come back to you. Thanks for the offer! Cobatfor (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Waiting for the sunset and then the Star Ferry (8114479053).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Waiting for the sunset and then the Star Ferry (8114479053).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Wylve (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Waikiki night.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Waikiki night.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Mjrmtg (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

File:The Baby, Or Going to the Bath (Boston Public Library).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:The Baby, Or Going to the Bath (Boston Public Library).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Mono 23:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply left about WebM vs JPEG file

I left a reply for you at Commons:Village pump#Odd file type 'correction'. Just wanted to make sure you saw it before it fell off into the archives. --Closeapple (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, replied there. --Fæ (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Cant have one without the other (7799760202).jpg

{Autotranslate|1=File:Cant have one without the other (7799760202).jpg|base=Copyvionote}} And also:

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan, I'm happy to see these go. I do not think that DM could be a valid rationale to be worth having a DR for. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, these seemed quite obvious to me. File:Gweilo (7231424774).jpg contains place names to the right on the photo: Hong Kong Island, Kowloon, New Territories and Macau. All outside Mainland China, so {{FoP-China}} doesn't apply. The rest of the photos all seem to be from Hong Kong. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Groupe des hommes de la congregation de Ville-Marie de Montreal (HS85-10-12897) detail.webm

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Groupe des hommes de la congregation de Ville-Marie de Montreal (HS85-10-12897) detail.webm|2=|3=|base=Idw}} McZusatz (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Thumbs up, Mat! (100448998).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Thumbs up, Mat! (100448998).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Htm (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:On the number 10 tram at Pikku-Huopalahti (100453509).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:On the number 10 tram at Pikku-Huopalahti (100453509).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Htm (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Mat on the freezing south-facing defences (100472703).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Mat on the freezing south-facing defences (100472703).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Htm (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Waiting for the bus... (100447290).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Waiting for the bus... (100447290).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Htm (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:On the tram (100453702).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:On the tram (100453702).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Htm (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Looking cold (100467878).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Looking cold (100467878).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Htm (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Files from norden.org

Hi, per your request on is:Wikipedia:Potturinn I have taken a look at the Icelandic photos you have uploaded from norden.org. There are a couple of files who would need to be deleted as there is no freedom for panorama in Iceland (well, at least not for commercial use...and that makes them inegible for commons). Those images are:

Great, thanks for taking a look at these, I appreciate your expertise. I will ask for a speedy deletion shortly. :-) Cheers --Fæ (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Moving thing near Munkkivuori (100454227).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Moving thing near Munkkivuori (100454227).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Htm (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Skajtare i centrala Helsingfors.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Skajtare i centrala Helsingfors.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Apalsola t • c 18:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

File:A closer look at the monument (100506172).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:A closer look at the monument (100506172).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Htm (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Moving thing near Munkkivuori (100454502).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Moving thing near Munkkivuori (100454502).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Htm (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Fat tabby kitten.jpg

This one is ideal to create a lolcat image ;-). Thanks for your comment on VP. --Túrelio (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

File:The stylers (7231416220).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:The stylers (7231416220).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Jespinos (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Flag of Thailand.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Flag of Thailand.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Fry1989 eh? 01:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I have no problem in the JPGs being superseded by the SVGs for all the related flag images, if they are indeed completely identical and not variations, in line with current guidelines. I also suggest that the DRs are bundled to one discussion on this basis, there do not seem to be separate issues beyond testing that the images are visually identical. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Uploads

I have nominated them all individually for a few reasons. First, I didn't realize just how many had been uploaded until going back several pages, at which point I had already nominated about a dozen individually. The second is they are not all at the same level of complexity. File:Flag of Benin.jpg is basically 3 squares, as simple as it gets and the only real difference between it and out SVG is the format. Some others however, such as File:Flag of Gibraltar.jpg are more complex and do differ from out SVG, however the principle of pre-existing SVGs generally still applies, so it needs an individual review. Some I have not nominated at all, because they differ enough that they could be considered different images altogether. Fry1989 eh? 05:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I would have tried using Hotcat to add a deletion review category, and based a single DR on that "bundle" without having to list them all. Where there are other issues, these could either be noted against the image, or another bundled DR for those with a similar set of issues. Too late now I guess, but it makes for a lot of extra admin work. I'm not going to vote on these, I'm quite happy for deletion where there is any doubt. Note that the images were confirmed as non-duplicates on upload, which should mean they were not identical by checksum with any existing file, or any previously deleted file. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately that last statement is not true, atleast in the case of File:Flag of American Samoa.jpg which we already have under a different name. They're slightly different in size, which is probably why you didn't get a duplication alert, but they are the exact same image. If that one slipped, some others may have as well. But an general, most of these we don't need, especially the ones that are just basic shapes. Fry1989 eh? 05:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
That's right, we don't have a smart way of detecting duplicates of different sizes, only those identical by checksum. I'm afraid that such variations can only be found by a visual check for the time being, and that means the two images would need to be spotted in the same category and on the same page of 200 images - not a great system considering that Google can find "similar" images fairly well so a solution is do-able. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Images with a lack of educational use

Hi, Fae! I read your comments on the Village Pump, so I want to know your thoughts about Commons:Deletion requests/File:PALESTINE-ISRAEL.png

It was deleted because of a copyvio but not because of a perceived lack of educational use. I argued over the latter but at that discussion some users said " Commons has consistently refused to delete politically charged maps on the grounds that we are usually not competent to determine whether they are accurate or not. I strongly support that policy, so I would not delete this on the grounds of its accuracy or content." but I feel that is a problem since it means tolerating non-educational images related to these conflicts. If there is an educational basis (i.e. a map of Hamas's aspirations based on a Hamas document) then it's perfectly fine. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Cripes, well I'm actually going to be tied up all day tomorrow and it's a very busy week with Chapter business, so I'm pushed for time. I'll take a look in a day or two, probably at the weekend, and say something about it here. --Fæ (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok :) WhisperToMe (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Detail from "Songs of the Virginia Serenaders", 1844, showing two (white) performers made up as black minstrels. Songs listed in their performance included "Who's dat nigger dare peepin?" Scanned by Boston Public Library and uploaded from Flickr by Fæ to be preserved on Wikimedia Commons.
Detail from "Songs of the Virginia Serenaders", 1844, showing two (white) performers made up as black minstrels. Songs listed in their performance included "Who's dat nigger dare peepin?" Scanned by Boston Public Library and uploaded from Flickr by Fæ to be preserved on Wikimedia Commons.

Okay, firstly I have not got access to the deleted image, and have only read the DR rather than any supporting material. Here are a couple of pointers for future discussions:

  • Any controversial image must have impeccable copyright status. As there was doubt raised about this one, it seems entirely correct that it was deleted.
  • Images may be on commons where there is an educational purpose that can be justified. Where the image is offensive, disruptive or appears to be deliberately used here or elsewhere to attack or defame individuals or groups, then the educational purpose rationale must be robust to challenge and outweigh other concerns. I did not find the rationales presented in the DR particularly convincing, I would have thought that evidence of active use for an education purpose would have helped the discussion, a lot.
    For example, I have uploaded the music score on the right, which includes a lyric with "nigger" in it and has blacked-up white actors, making this potentially highly offensive. However the historic value for educational illustration is easy to argue and though this image has been available on Commons for a long time, I have never noticed it being used in a deliberately offensive way.
  • Maps are a bit of a special area, often being used for propaganda or other political purpose, and I note the discussion that accuracy is not a key part of a deletion determination. However if a map is not of particular current usage, I would suspect that the uploader had ulterior motives in establishing such an image on Commons and would closely question any educational rationale presented.

Sorry my pointers here are hypothetical, though if this image or a similar one comes up for Deletion review, or Undeletion is requested, I would be happy to put aside some time to examine the background (though I don't want to spend all my time looking at maps ;-) ). Cheers --Fæ (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

{Autotranslate|1=|2=Files in Category:Photos by Istolethetv|3=plural|base=Idw}} Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Quasi-infinitum (6217766342).jpg

{Autotranslate|1=File:Quasi-infinitum (6217766342).jpg|base=Dw image source}} Stefan4 (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, this should go. I don't think the inset painting is well known, so we are unlikely to make a cautious copyright interpretation. --Fæ (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Kimono, Karin Beate Nosterud.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Kimono, Karin Beate Nosterud.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Htm (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Marked, Karin Beate Nosterud.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Marked, Karin Beate Nosterud.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Htm (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Scene, Karin Beate Nosterud.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Scene, Karin Beate Nosterud.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Htm (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Mat at home (100453299).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Mat at home (100453299).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Htm (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Mat posing with the most advertised burger in Helsinki (100451117).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Mat posing with the most advertised burger in Helsinki (100451117).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Htm (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Artwork (100509183).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Artwork (100509183).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Htm (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Dont eat the roast! (114740379).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Dont eat the roast! (114740379).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Amada44  talk to me 08:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Fae's upload of the month

Whaaa? --Fæ (talk) 11:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Culture 08 (91545442).jpg

{Autotranslate|1=File:Culture 08 (91545442).jpg|base=Copyvionote}} Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say this falls under FOP as the poster is only partially in view and it is clearly wrapped as a 3D tube, so this is not a photograph which could be called a "faithful 2D reproduction" of the poster, or re-used as such. Not that I'm desperately in love with this image, though a DR might be suitable in this case. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Nordic cooperation

An example image from norden.org - this entertaining portrait is of Anders Fogh Rasmussen the current Secretary General of NATO and a previous Prime Minister of Denmark.

The images you are uploading from the Nordic cooperation are excellent. Thanks for doing this. The big category is rather hard to browse however. Lots of boring politicians (useful in their own way, sure) to skip past to find the beauty. I wonder if you can apply sub-categories in the same ways as the site has a hierarchy at Images on the left hand side menu? Could this be applied for existing uploads and new ones? I don't know much about bots but the information seem to be retrievable from the site and could be made a category. -- Colin (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It certainly is an option. The uploads should be complete within a day or two and I can think a bit about sorting after that, unless the wider community sorts it out first (the last few sets are a bit fiddly, the files are on the large side which slows things down for me, and I have four processes running in parallel :-) ). There are a couple of easy ways of sorting:
  1. the keywords from the norden site are already on the image description pages, so these can easily be mapped by a bot to add/move to more detailed categories.
  2. the website source link uses sub-directory names that can again be used to map to detailed categories.
I will be happy to run a few basic sorting scripts in Python once the upload is complete, please do make any suggestions here and I'll return to them in a couple of days. I confess that running the scripts using non-ascii characters is a bit beyond me, so I may well have to sort to a "transition" category and then use something like hotcat to finish it off.
It is a lot of files in one go, and I have worried hard about categorization. My current categorization is basic, but it is only a starting point and I'm afraid that my knowledge of the region is very limited so I did not want to make embarrassing errors about names of political parties or names of regions or artefacts. In the end I thought it was better to get on with the upload (I delayed for a few weeks thinking about it) rather than never getting around to it. Thanks for the encouragement. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Would you mind letting me know when the upload is done. I'll have a think about organisation in the mean time. There's a chance to sub-cat within the nordic cat, based on their hierarchy perhaps. But also I suppose finding the appropriate existing Commons cat for each picture -- which could be much harder. I know nothing about HotCat -- can it suggest categories?
I'd love to browse through this collection and try to add them to articles (though I guess our Scandinavian Wikipedians will find even more value). I'm sure there are some featured pics among this lot, including the Anders Fogh Rasmussen's image! Do you fancy nominating that? Do you know any history regarding the site as to why they have contributed so much with a free licence? Are there other similar ones? Colin (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll leave you a note when it's done. Most of the political images are under Category:Nordic Council. Hotcat can usefully list sub-cats of cats that you type in, a useful feature and worth playing about with if you haven't tried it out. I'll think about FP, though one from this set (the yawning dog) is up for FP discussion at the moment. Norden.org has CC-BY-2.5-dk licences (now, it was not always so) as it fits with their policy with regard to open access. As many other EU political organizations have missions to optimize their public outreach for the benefit of their regions, many are moving over to using Creative Commons licenses; indeed if you spot a political official site (or political party site) it is worth writing to them and pointing out how they would benefit from CC-BY or CC-BY-SA free reuse licences. If we sort out this batch upload nicely, this might be a good example to point to. :-) Cheers --Fæ (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes the dog was how I first spotted the uploads -- it isn't the most "educational" of images, though -- more like what a stock agency might hold. I'll have a look at HotCat and see what I can learn. I assume if I categorised anything using existing WP categories it wouldn't interfere with anything automatic. Also, perhaps categorising by photographer could be useful. If you decide against the FP for Anders let me know. Colin (talk)

Image upload

Hi!

I have noticed that you are currently uploading many files from external sources - some of them are sites which publish PD-images. My question: Which tool do you use to upload them? It seems that your uploads are partly bot-supported. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not using a tool as such, but there is some web-scraping, and quite a bit of special character mapping from multiple languages - which has been tailored as I went along. I have a supporting custom bit of Python for the current Norden.org uploads, which means I am taking a particular gallery page like this one and scraping the metadata so that I can generate the image pages accurately along with confirming the CC-BY licence (not all these images are on a free reuse licence) and suggesting a suitable filename. I had expected this to be around 1,000 images, but was surprised by the number of images relating to their events buried under some sub-folders (I don't have an easy way of counting them in advance). There are 4,000 odd images uploaded now, and I only expect a couple of hundred more before this is finished, probably this weekend if I have time (it's not fully automated so I have to monitor it, set up each folder by hand and work out a relevant category to apply). Had it been a larger or fully automated upload, I would have considered using Faebot, though I might need to "officially" change the defined scope of that bot to do this for non-UK related uploads like these from the Nordic region.
Norden.org was suggested to me by Russavia during a discussion a month or so ago, and is the only site I'm doing this sort of semi-manual custom upload from at the moment, apart from a couple of Flickr sets in this past week where I used Flickr2Commons as a reliable tool. You can find the history and outcomes of my upload projects at the top of my User page, there is more detail in the categories and associated discussion (such as User:Fæ/email/IWM) and you can review Faebot's activities at User:Faebot, which I hope is sufficient, let me know if anything ought to be explained more clearly. --Fæ (talk) 09:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for helping. Well, Flickr2Commons is a very good tool but unfirtunately only for flickr. Anyway, thanks! Regards, High Contrast (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
As a back-burner I did start to set out a guide for those interested in doing similar stuff, see User:Faebot/guide, but it's only at the very start of being something useful, or possibly a conference workshop/presentation. --Fæ (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Odd descriptions

Hi Fae! I'm coming to you in my continuing quest to understand Commons! I'm wondering, is there a way to sensibly correct the mess that is the description page at Media:27 taking the tow to HMS Eskimo Sept 1975.jpg? I can do it by hand, but that seems... counter-intuitive. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you are generating the page layout, but you seem to be adding stuff outside of the {{Information}} template. If you fix that, the rest should format okay. --Fæ (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Alfheidur Ingadottir (VG) Island, Nordiska radets session 2011 i Kopenhamn.jpg

Thanks for your great work uploading the useful Nordic Council images. There seems to be a problem with File:Alfheidur Ingadottir (VG) Island, Nordiska radets session 2011 i Kopenhamn.jpg. It is the same as File:Alfheidur Ingadottir.jpg and the source link leads to another image. Can you look at that?
Also the image descriptions use Template:En to say they are in English. All descriptions I have seen so far are in Swedish or Norwegian (I assume there could also be Danish and maybe Finnish description, but I have not seen any yet). Now I try to fix this manually as I categorize the images. Do you know if there is any easier way to fix this? /Ö 08:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the duplicate, I have marked it for deletion. My uploads are checked for duplicates using the standard API call, it could be that this was caught out by the Commons database supporting the API lagging the reality of uploads. Unfortunately norden.org carries this file twice, so this was a hard one to avoid; hopefully there are no other duplicates.
Addendum Just understood what you were saying about the sources - the medium size file that norden are using to view the photo is not the same as the full size version - naughty error! No way of predicting this sort of error on their website and as I'm unsure where the full alternative photo of Álfheiður Ingadóttir would be, I'll just leave this to be deleted.
Unfortunately I don't know of any easy way to identify the languages. There are several being used at norden.org for their descriptions (though the keywords I'm using should all be in English) and their pages do not mark the language chosen. I have defaulted to English on the basis that the keywords are English, this seems to be a task that those with more familiarity with the Nordic languages than I have can help out with. I did ponder this for some time, hence taking several weeks before starting the uploads, but never worked out a way around it and thought it best to get these up on Commons where the wider community could help with improving the categorization and identification. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
The preview image at norden.org is similar to others that you uploaded with correct full size version, so I don't think we are missing anything important. (If someone really wants that exact image they could try contacting the website). The language templates are not really a problem, just a little extra work, I will continue changing them when I add categories. /Ö 13:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Motor torpedo boats

You have added a lot of images to this non-existing category. Use the existing category-tree Category:Torpedo boats instead. /ℇsquilo 09:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for raising these for attention, I have shuffled them around now. It's not always a bad thing to use a non-existent category when sorting images out, especially as our system is so non-systematic. :-) --Fæ (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


404 error got back?

Do you have any clue what could have gone wrong with this file. Was the upload successful? Did the file disappear after the successful upload? --McZusatz (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I would guess the upload broke in some way mid-upload. I have re-uploaded and can see the file now. You may need to refresh the page in your browser. Thanks for highlighting it for attention. :-) --Fæ (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

File:The Munich Agreement, September 1938 HU48566.jpg

Hi Fæ, regrettably, this image needs to be moved to :en Wikipedia (+ a do-not-move-to-Commons notice) as it was shot in Germany and is still copyrighted by the Hitler photographer Hoffmann :-(. --Túrelio (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised. The copyright is to the Ministry of Information as this was their employee/department so all rights must be held by the Crown. I don't *think* German copyright law can apply, but I would be happy to have a link. If this is correct then we should probably have a DR to set a precedence for any other images that might be affected in this collection - and then if it is removed I would be happy to inform the Imperial War Museum's IP manager, who should arrange to have it deleted from their website rather than claiming an inappropriate licence. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I might have explained better. The strange situation is simply a consequence of Commons' policy that images have to be free in US (+) and country of origin (-); see the note in Category:Heinrich Hoffmann. Imperial War Museum's lciensing is correct as the images are considered as enemy booty. --Túrelio (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, please do delete this file as a speedy copyvio, along with any others we might stumble on. The IWM has 328 photographs on their website by Hoffmann, see http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/search?f[0]=makerString%3AHoffmann%20Heinrich&query=. Unfortunately, my upload of this particular set has just completed, but I have added a trap for any future upload from the IWM (not planning it just now, but there may be more) so that Hoffmann will be skipped in future. As the advice on the category says, these are probably seized property post-war but unfortunately the IWM catalogue does not make this clear and they provide no specific warning as to likely copyright in Germany. I'll put this on my backlog to raise for their attention.
Thanks for spotting this and properly pointing it out for action.
BTW, I'm going to use VFC to check the category for others and mark them for speedy, but I'll only get around to this in a few hours, or possibly tomorrow. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
In the longer term, I'll consider uploading the 328 photos en-mass to en.wp rather than just this one. Now I'm no longer banned there it's an option. :-) Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
But, do you prefer to have them deleted first from Commons or after your upload to :en? --Túrelio (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
As they may be a copyright problem, this should be our priority over other concerns, so I would rather they are deleted. I can sort out en.wp versions later without any particular loss of content for the projects; they'll still be sitting waiting for me on the IWM website. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done. I think this was the only one. --Túrelio (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for fixing my complaints super fast. McZusatz (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

File:HMS Brave Borderer FL2851.jpg

Hello Fæ. Thank you to upload many images.

By the way, HMS Brave Borderer(P1011) are laid down in 1958 and retired in 1970. This photo may have been taken after 1964. I hope that you will do something. Thank you. --58.188user (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I have raised it for speedy. There were a handful of photos that were mistakenly added to a WWII upload set, before I realized that it was taking some photos after WWII. Hopefully this is all of them now. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The category seems to contain lots of other similar images. Do you think that it would be OK to simply use {{Speedy}} for all of those? I would assume that the people on the photos are friends and relatives to the Flickr account holder and thus completely uninteresting for Commons.
Also: The category may need to be checked for FOP issues. Although many of the photos were taken in the United Kingdom, I saw a few ferries from Silja Line and Viking Line. This indicates that the uploader has been to Finland (Silja Line only runs to/from Finland, Viking Line also runs to/from Estonia), and there might be photos of some Finnish/Estonian statues or Estonian buildings in there. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Just left a note on your talk page before reading this, I would just go ahead and speedy delete any that seem doubtful. I regret uploading from this Flickrstream so liberally. I was misled by a few good sets and became less than vigilant. Thanks for your help. --Fæ (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Estonia can not into Nordic, but Nordic can into Commons

Fae can into Nordic barnstar
Hey Fae, thanks for uploading all of those images from the Nordic Co-operation website; they are a great addition to our repository. Fae can into Nordic, but shhhh, don't tell Estonia. Great work! russavia (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, these were more work than I was expecting, but as there were three times more high quality images than I thought, it seems worth the hassle. I am pleased to see how quickly volunteers have been engaging with these images, and helping with categorization and improving descriptions. :-) --Fæ (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Tidying up Norden.org

Hi there. I assume you are finished with your uploads. I've had a browse through the "places" and there are a few decent images in there worth pursuing further. I've also had a browse through the literature prize and added some of the photos. These photos in particular are of a very high quality and typically illustrate an article without any photos. However, I have found quite a number on the www.norden.org website, with a CC BY 2.5 licence, that aren't on Commons (or I can't find them). Here's a list so far, and it is just a selection of those I would choose to illustrate articles. Sorry my links are crap and don't work on Commons -- it is late here so I'm off to bed. If the country is in () then there is no English WP article. Anyway, perhaps this indicates a gap in your script's ability to detect suitable works? All these pictures would illustrate a Wikipedia article (often in several languages) with an excellent photo, so I think they are worth investigating. I only went back as far as 2007 in the literature prize. Colin (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Colin's list

Hanus Kamban

Katarina Frostenson

Leo Löthman (swedish)

Saila Susiluoto (finish)

Gerður Kristný

Rawdna Carita Eira (norway)

Pia Tafdrup

Per Petterson

Naja Marie Aidt

Morten Søndergaard

Göran Sonnevi

Fredrik Lång (swedish)

Auður Jónsdóttir

Katarina Frostenson

Leo Löthman (swedish)

Saila Susiluoto (finish)

Gerður Kristný

Rawdna Carita Eira (norway)

Pia Tafdrup

Per Petterson

Naja Marie Aidt

Morten Søndergaard

Göran Sonnevi

Fredrik Lång (swedish)

Auður Jónsdóttir

No worries, it was easy for me to miss a gallery as the sub-directories were identified by hand rather than automatically, so easy to have some human error :-) I'm stepping through these a bit at a time, it may take a day and I'm just off to bed now too... I am taking each 'gallery' from your list and uploading the lot. If you spot any more galleries missing from the uploads, just let me have a link to the gallery rather than individual images. By the way, I'm on an old macmini and wifi, this probably has some bearing on speed as some of these images are larger than 15mb each, which soon eats up my bandwidth! --Fæ (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  1. http://www.norden.org/en/news-and-events/images/nordic-council-prizes/literature-prize/literature-prize-events/literature-prize-event-on-25-february-2012-at-nordic-culture-point -> Category:Literature Prize event on 25 February 2012 at Nordic Culture Point ✓ Done
  2. http://www.norden.org/en/news-and-events/images/nordic-council-prizes/literature-prize/literature-prize-events/the-nordic-council-literature-prize-winner-2011-is-announced-in-oslo -> Category:Nordic Council Literature Prize 2011 in Oslo
  3. http://www.norden.org/en/news-and-events/images/nordic-council-prizes/literature-prize/literature-prize-2012 -> Category:Nordic Council Literature Prize 2012 already ✓ Done, just needed categorization.
    1. I'm pretty sure I did most of these before, repeating the process and adding to Category:Nordic Council Literature Prize as needed. ✓ Done
Ok, I wasn't sure if the issue was at the gallery level or individual. There are photos in some of those literature-prize galleries that aren't CC. I've also found one or two that are CC on the events page but restricted on the literature-prize page. I wonder if the website has miscategorised them as they look like pro publicity shots that are more likely to be restricted than the event shots (in which case we may need to delete them). I'll try to find examples next time I look. Colin (talk) 08:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, those that are not CC, like this one you linked to cannot be on Commons (and I'm skipping them). I would guess this was the photographer's choice at the time of upload. I'm also skipping files that have no named photographer as dubious (mostly these turn out to be the lower quality stuff anyway). --Fæ (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
How is the Hanus Kamban photo not suitable? It has a CC licence and isn't one of the studio-publicity-shots I was referring to. Colin (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I pasted the wrong link. This one was uploaded, you can find it here. I'm still working back through Nordic Council Literature Prize, hitting 2006/2005 right now. :-) --Fæ (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll have another go at locating the pics from the newer prizes now. I assume you have some way of detecting identical photos if they appear in two galleries? Colin (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the API does a checksum based search, if two images are identical by checksum, the upload is skipped. Duplicates are possible if the uploads are close together (I think the database has a lag time) or if they vary in any way; such as resolution, or the EXIF data has been changed. One consequence is that only the category I used on first upload gets used, so there may be a need for a bit of extra categorization some time after we have the image on Commons. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I've done all the names in my list. That's nearly 30 authors with excellent photos that mostly didn't have one before. I must say the Commons search is nearly useless -- even if the person's name is in your long filename, it does't find it. For example, search for "Edvard Hoem" and it won't find this. Is there a better way to search? Colin (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't know a better way, even a Google search limited to commons gives similar poor results. I suspect in this instance, it may be due to the photo only recently being uploaded and the search relying on a cache of some sort. You may find that in an hour, or by tomorrow, a search would find it. Just finished the 2003 images! Let me know if you spot anything else missing, or that a batch/bot job might help with for categorization or other mass changes. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've worked through the rest of the prizes. I have a few queries. The following three images are I suspect publicity shots that have been miscategorised as CC. For the first two, there are other versions that aren't CC that I've linked. For the third, I think it isn't CC based on the gallery and the photographer being the institute and the style.

It's possible, but the licence declaration looks good. If you are concerned, by all means do raise them up for discussion on a Deletion Request to make sure. --Fæ (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
The declaration is presumably done by the website chap, not the photographer. Unless the CC declaration is in the EXIF, then there is a good chance of some mistakes. I'll email them to ask if there is a mistake. Colin (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a reasonable picture of en:Eva Ström over here that seems missing, though the rest of the gallery is present (Category:Nordic Council Literature Prize 2011 in Oslo)) Colin (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

See File:Eva Ström.jpg - I had set things up so that any photo without a named photographer would be skipped. Re-running to take these (along with having to fix bad default names). --Fæ (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you know an easy way to rename Category:Halldor Asgrimsson to Category:Halldór Ásgrímsson? I did Category:Dagfinn Hoeybraaten to Category:Dagfinn Høybråten by hand and created a redirect but that was tedious and I don't know if the redirect is the right thing to do. Colin (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No, but I've just done it fairly quickly using Hotcat to move the 31 files. There's probably a quick move tool of some sort, but I've never got around to looking for it. --Fæ (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I assume we should be using the correct spelling and not the ASCII version (or whatever you call it). Colin (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually that's a whole great big controversial debate. Many (including Jimmy Wales) would prefer to only have the simple ascii character set for names on Commons, however that is distinctly at odds with the international nature of Commons, indeed some find it insulting. I've sort of steered around it, but I have always supported those that feel that transliterations were inappropriate or misleading for their first language; this is doubly true for names of people. :-) --Fæ (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Having more than one name for a category or file is the sort of thing this project needs. And moving to a keyword based system rather than deep category nesting would help too. The categories and search on this site make for an appalling interface for anyone trying to find things. I thought WMF had money to spend -- they could spend some of it here. Colin (talk) 08:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree, you could usefully raise this for discussion on the Village pump and see what suggestions come up to take it forward. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Bente Dahl Radikale Venstre (RV) Danmark. Nordiska radets session i Reykjavik 2010.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Bente Dahl Radikale Venstre (RV) Danmark. Nordiska radets session i Reykjavik 2010.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Colin (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Fish

Hi, The Category:Fish is a main category, can you arrange all your new images and delete the duplicates ? Thanks--Citron (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I have removed these from the Fish category. They will remain on my backlog. I had hoped that those interested in fish species might help out as I know virtually nothing about the topic. If you have spotted any duplicates, it would be great to know which they are as these have been checked for duplicates using the standard checksum via the API. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I had already started to arrange, but there is really too much. I saw a lot of duplicate, the API doesn't seem sure. Where are they now ? --Citron (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
They are swimming around in the ocean of Category:Images uploaded by Fæ (check needed). I can fish these out into a temporary category if you would like to work on them. Just cooking a late lunch (not fish), so I'll launch that process in a couple of hours. I could use Category:Unidentified fish or make something a bit more specialized like Category:Images of fauna uploaded by Fæ (check needed); I'll probably go for the latter as not all of these fish-related images are specifically of species of fish. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Hoegni Hoydal fran Faroarna. Nordiska radets session 2009.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Hoegni Hoydal fran Faroarna. Nordiska radets session 2009.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Colin (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Duplicates

I've been finding some pics already uploaded (usually tagged with the "Nordic Council" template -- see this). These other pics have a less specific licence and the URL is broken. In many ways your versions are better. However, the other versions are in-use. So I wasn't sure which to prefer and had been nominating the new ones for deletion. Perhaps that isn't the right way. If I mark the other versions with the Duplicate template, will someone fix up the in-use situations to point at yours? -- Colin (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, anyone deleting an image marked as a duplicate should be merging the best data and choosing the better image to keep. Unfortunately, if there are different resolution versions on Commons, then these are impossible for the standard tools to identify. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Kari P. Hoejgaard, viceordforande i vastnordiskaradet. Sessionen i Stockholm 2009.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Kari P. Hoejgaard, viceordforande i vastnordiskaradet. Sessionen i Stockholm 2009.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Colin (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Merseyside

Can i ask for your help? I am trying to tidy up images under Category "Merseyside" and your bot keeps adding random images. I have no idea how this works but you see they need to go on specific categories they are far too random which is why i am cleaning it up. Yet there seems to be more being added by your bot. Any way you can help? Babydoll0409 (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

These will be Geograph images of locations for which there are no visible categories at all, but are geolocated within Merseyside. Faebot is doing the whole of Wales in one fell swoop, and is on image 104,952/178,112. I could leave these uncategorized, but that would seem a shame. Is there a Merseyside-places-needing-more-categories type sub-category that might be better? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm going through these now. It's easy if they have geocoords or if one is familiar with Merseyside (as I am) to pick better (if not exactly precise) categories- it's then a matter of refining further as one drills down through the category tree. I don't see any need for "needs more precise categories" category, because that should be implicit in the images being in a general category. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the interest. Unfortunately the choice comes down to either sticking these in the hidden Geograph category (which is all that Faebot does for images with one or more visible category) and doing nothing else, or adding them to the 'county' level region. Eventually Faebot might do a bit more, but it's already impressively making hundreds of thousands of images more accessible and sortable and I have defaulted to an extremely cautious approach to automating categorization. --Fæ (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the county level is adequate for now, and it's only a matter of a few hours work to move images to more specific categories, possibly using the mapping tools to begin with. A cautious approach is best, because I have seen loads on Flickr uploads with wildly incorrect automated categories! I'd tackle the "Geograph by square" categories, but they are dauntingly large for me at present. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

File:HMS London FL2968.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:HMS London FL2968.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback

You may remember that back in January we talked about the possibility of enabling AFT for Commons images. I've finally written up an RFC on enabling it - would you mind taking a look before I make it public and start inviting comments? The draft proposal is at User:Andrew Gray/feedback. Thanks, Andrew Gray (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably later today. BTW, AFT may be better as MFT. --Fæ (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, renaming it for here might have to be part of the process :-). I don't think anyone's yet used it for anything other than WP article-space. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the questions - hopefully addressed now! I've moved it to a formal RFC: Commons:Requests for Comment/Feedback. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

File:HMS GLOWWORM makes smoke as she attempts to attack the German heavy cruiser ADMIRAL HIPPER during the Norwegian campaign, 8 April 1940. The destroyer was sunk when she rammed the German ship. FL1973.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:HMS GLOWWORM makes smoke as she attempts to attack the German heavy cruiser ADMIRAL HIPPER during the Norwegian campaign, 8 April 1940. The destroyer was sunk when she rammed the German ship. FL1973.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


Fæ, DFTT. --Túrelio (talk)

Point taken. --Fæ (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Trawls through the Admiralty Official Collection

Fae, in your exploration of the IWM collections have you come across an image of VC winner Richard Been Stannard? I know there is one reference A15014 in the IWM collection but the image isn't shown on their website. Thanks. Nthep (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I see matches on the IWM site to "R B Stannard" too. Unfortunately none appears visible to the public. My uploads are filtered to WWII or earlier only to make copyright easy, and if an image is blanked on the IWM site, then they are skipped. However as I have not uploaded the Admiralty collection, I'm giving this a closer look and something might pop-up. You will be able to find a backlog being populated at Category:Admiralty official collection (check needed) - it may take a day or two to fill up. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

British Museum IDs in Wikidata

Hi, I was wondering if it would make sense to add the British Museum online IDs to Wikidata entries about BM objectst like Q131141. I think it would, and we already have such links through en:Template:British-Museum-db. But two things give me pause: could the museum object to it (Wikidata is much more machine-readable, and much more scalable than Wikipedia) ? Is the ID stable over time ? Though it appeats in the URL, I see no mention no mention of it in the page itself. What do you think ? --Zolo (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zolo, we should be cautious here. The only reference from the British Museum that is definitely stable and consistent is the Registration Number. Please refer anyone who is confused to my long established essay Wikipedia:BMREF.
In the example of the Younger Memnon that the wikidata record should be about, the number Q131141 does not relate to any current system used by academics or the museum; we should avoid creating new identifiers. The (internal) BM online database id is 117633, which I would not recommend as the database does not use any guaranteed persistent identifiers and this number would never be used in any academic publication. The BM uses the collection number EA 19 for the statue, this identifies it within the Egyptian Antiquities collection, this number is the primary one used in academic publications (and has been used for nearly 200 years) but is not a "museum wide" numbering system for all its artefacts. The statue has a bizarre registration number of ".19", which does not, unfortunately fit the standard form which ought to look like 1817,0101.19. Registration number is the same system across all collections, and should be consistently used everywhere. Unfortunately for artefacts registered very early in the museum's history, such as the most famous early Egyptian Antiquities, the baggage of history tends to make them exceptions to the rule or standard formats. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, we certainly need to keep the historical numbers, either trough a dedicated property, or through the inventory number property. Perhaps somethings like:
inventory number
                 .19 (British Museum accession number)
                 EA 19 (British Museum collection number)
Still in addition to this, it would be useful, if we could link directly from Wikidata to the BM's website, the way Template:British-Museum-db. But, well if it is the object ID of the database is too fickle, I guess we can just send a request to the BM's search engine (like this). By the way I have seen collection.britishmuseum.org. It seems to use different IDs, but I do not understand a thing about that. Is there any way we could make use of it ? --Zolo (talk) 11:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll ask our contact in the BM, we might be able to influence the beta test version. :-) --Fæ (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Great! thanks. --Zolo (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hi Fea,

Many thanks for your intervention on my case. You correctly guessed that the blocking of my account was unjust to me and my foundation. To compare the small watermark in my photographs with unashamed spamming is far over the top!

I still try to reach a win-win condition where I can donate my 12000 pictures in a clean state and at the same time capture enough attention of potential visitors to my site. All my pictures are of specific beautiful old towns. Perhaps it is possible to put an external link at the bottom of the lemma of these towns in the Dutch wikipedia. Something like: gratis stadswandeling (free city walk). But I'm vacant to other useful suggestions.

Greetings, Jan Geerling (Microtoerisme) Microtoerisme (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


I'm pleased to see dialogue and a better understanding. In your case, being blocked looked like a pointless punishment. Keep calm, stay mellow and stay focussed on the end goal - improving and increasing the educational content of Wikimedia Commons. :-) Cheers --Fæ (talk) 09:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Resilient Barnstar
Thank you for being resilient. Thanks very much for your many wonderful contributions to Wikimedia Commons in the face of ongoing harassment by wikihounding against you. Thank you for continuing to contribute varied and useful media to Wikimedia Commons while enduring all of this troubling and disturbing behavior. -- Cirt (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the thought Cirt. I agree that seeing Commons being used for homophobic comments like this should worry everyone here, regardless of whether they normally think about LGBT matters or not, this is off-putting for contributors. As the Chair of the Chapters Association and more openly gay than most, I'm an obvious target. That said, I am an unpaid volunteer doing my best, I did not sign-up to have my personal life maliciously invaded and become a subject of scorn, or to be hounded and harassed year after year. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion requests by 99of9

FoP-China

Hi Fae,
I've tagged a few of your uploads with {{FoP-China}}:
However, one of the conditions of Chinese FoP is that "the name of the author and the title of the work are mentioned". Please can you ascertain the author (and title if there is one) (or PD status) of these works (and any others you've uploaded which rely on FoP-China)? I have no doubt that most of these can be saved with additional information, but at the moment they are insufficient and we should not host them for long in this state. Thanks. --99of9 (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, these are a puzzle and I'm happy to do a little analysis (probably next week), however I am not familiar with the area, so my information will be based on internet searches rather than any expert knowledge. I would be happy to see these bundled into a precautionary DR if you think that's the best way of handling and/or drawing attention for others to help assess these images.
I did glance at the FoP for China, but obviously should have read it more carefully, so thanks for pointing this provision out. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Exactly how does the author requirement work? File:A picture from China every day 085.jpg shows en:Beijing National Stadium. The Wikipedia article tells that the work was made by en:Herzog & de Meuron and others. Are company names OK, or is it required to list the names of the individual employees? Can an architecture firm disable FOP by simply refusing to name its employees? --Stefan4 (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
At a guess the architectural company would own the architectural copyright of their employees (since that is their primary output). For such a high profile piece, a link to the wiki article is probably sufficient, where extra information will naturally accumulate. --99of9 (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, if you make a work for hire in some countries, then the copyright holder is the employer, but if you make a work for hire in some other countries, then the copyright holder is the employee. I don't know how copyright rules work in China. Also, it says that you have to credit the author, not the copyright holder, although there's a possibility that a company name might suffice; I have no idea. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, there is an awful lot of other images in Category:Beijing National Stadium which fail the author attribution requirement, so it's not just a problem with your image. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this could be a very widespread problem on Commons, because it's not always trivial for the photographer to identify the sculptor/architect, even if they do know of the requirement. I hadn't come across it before, but I find the requirement in China-FoP quite interesting, a sort of CC-BY of FoP. --99of9 (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
See also the discussion at CT:FOP#PRC and attribution. Other countries, such as Germany, also have an attribution requirement, but the good thing with the German attribution requirement is that you don't need to attribute the author if the name of the author isn't known to you, whereas the Chinese attribution requirement seems to apply even if the name of the author is unknown to you.
On a side note, it would be very useful to have lists of places where information about architects and sculptors likely can be located, such as SIRIS in the United States. It helps a lot with attribution requirements and it is also useful for finding out whether a given building is PD-old or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this issue is worth having a template that puts the file on a backlog category of public space photographs taken in China which features creative works where the author or title has yet to be added, along with a nice notice on the image page which encourages others to add this information. We can then at least size the problem, and have a means for those that know regions in China very well to help chip away at the backlog. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of suggesting adding two extra parameters in {{FoP-China}}, author= and title=. That way the template could tell us if they were lacking. --99of9 (talk) 11:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
It could work rather nicely by changing the template advice if these are blank and including a relevant hidden backlog category, though we need to avoid flagging images with no artworks present, such as photographs of natural landscape. Should not be hard to do with a bit of template wizardry. --Fæ (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Natural landscapes don't need the template at all. I don't think we need to cater for them. --99of9 (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
That's right, though my point was that a user may still apply the FoP-China template and we don't want to automatically start asking for title and artist name just because the FOP template has been used. Anyway, it's a good problem for a template wizard to solve. Do we have a noticeboard for template improvements? --Fæ (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, users shouldn't use an FOP template if the underlying work is in the public domain, since the special thing with FOP is that you can take photos of certain works without having to wait for them to enter the public domain. For example, {{FoP-UK}} only makes sense for copyrighted buildings such as the w:Scottish Parliament Building and not for public domain buildings such as the w:Tower of London. If people have been using {{FoP-China}} for flowers and trees, I think that we should just remove the templates from those images. I assume that lots of buildings don't have a title (
作品名称
), so the template needs to be able to handle untitled works. In those cases, I would assume that it is fine to just list the architect's name. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I think if someone puts the template on a flower, and the template asks for an author and title, maybe the uploader will reconsider and delete the FoP template themselves. So that's probably a good thing. --99of9 (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Pride London 2003 46.JPG

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Pride London 2003 46.JPG|2=|3=|base=Idw}} 99of9 (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Commented. --Fæ (talk) 10:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Frankly, bizarre. One could use the same deletion logic to delete almost any street scene with a car in it, that has anything more than a single colour finish. A real blight on photographs where one would fully expect a reasonable UK right of freedom of panorama. --Fæ (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Rabindranath Tagore monument inscription in Gordon Square.jpg

Please can you note the copyright/PD status of the underlying text in this file? Author died in 1941. I don't know where it was first published. --99of9 (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This was, I believe, his first poem in the collection Gitanjali, published in 1910 (in Bengali) and translated in 1912. I'll add something to this effect on the image page. This is one of the infinite areas on my infinite back-burner—I would like all this stuff on Wikisource one day, or on the much greater project that will supercede Wikisource. Thanks for the suggestion. :-) --Fæ (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done Fortunately Gitanjali is already available on Wikisource, so I could link to it there. --Fæ (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. --99of9 (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

ambiguous villages

Hi Fae, I've been sorting out category:Bierley and it occurs to me that you might be able to run a bot that would identify lots of similar problems. Could you possible produce a report of towns and villages in England where the Geograph has images from two different counties? I've been fixing these as I randomly come across them, but I've come across so many there must be tons out there. WereSpielChequers (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this may be a more common issue that we expected, based on Nilfanion's provisional analysis above. The plan for the next few months (or possibly most of next year) is for Faebot to trawl through every Geograph image and possibly every UK image (big job!) to check county mappings. The process of doing this might mean that we have a massive programme to add geocoordinates to place categories, this avoids the knotty issue of working out which category in a large tree is a place category, and distinguishes disambiguation categories like Category:Newport from place categories like Category:Newport, Wales. However the technical implementation pans out, it will certainly pick up on the county conflicts and make producing location discrepancy reports quite easy for almost anyone with a bit of VisualFileChange experience, or similar, to create. It might encourage us to establish a community consensus on better category names for places...
This is a slow and cautious project as we only want to fix things once, and to avoid annoying too many grumpy folks with (literally) millions of changes. So, hold onto your hat, it's coming and it's one of those big gnomic projects that hardly anyone notices happening, until they notice one day that things are strangely better than they were. :-) --Fæ (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Right now, there are many Geograph files in 2 different county categories, which are both wrong, like this. There are also a few cases where the file is correctly in 2 different village cats, and those villages are in different counties, like this. Also, going from all Geograph files to all UK geocoded files, is a minor leap - I suspect most of the latter are Geograph images. And as own work uploads really should have the right cats, that cuts the workload further...
With regards to the initial query, try looking for multiple parishes of the same name. That won't get all of files, but will make a significant dent. w:List of civil parishes in England is split by county, but could be assembled to give a national list. There are a few like Addington where the dab doesn't exist, but individual village cats do(Addington, Kent and Addington, Buckinghamshire), clearly a dab would be good.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I wouldn't be so sure that this is just a geograph problem. When I looked at Addington I quickly came to this with an interesting history to its cats. Also as well as tourists uploading stuff straight into "in England" categories I'm pretty sure that a lot of our new and occasional editors do the same. So we will always have to keep clearing out England and UK level categories. That said, finding the categories that are used for multiple different things and splitting them out does give people a chance to get it right in the future. Also the sooner we find them the smaller they will be and the less work to disambiguate them. WereSpielChequers (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

File:SAEF? (Imagicity 30).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:SAEF? (Imagicity 30).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} 99of9 (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Three Smiling Women (Imagicity 86).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Three Smiling Women (Imagicity 86).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} 99of9 (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Mural (Imagicity 175).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Mural (Imagicity 175).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} 99of9 (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Book Cover (Imagicity 225).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Book Cover (Imagicity 225).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} 99of9 (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Abstracts (1) (Imagicity 1096).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Abstracts (1) (Imagicity 1096).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} 99of9 (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Abstracts (Imagicity 1096).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Abstracts (Imagicity 1096).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} 99of9 (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

File:A picture from China every day 043.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:A picture from China every day 043.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} 99of9 (talk) 09:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

File:A picture from China every day 052.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:A picture from China every day 052.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} 99of9 (talk) 09:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

File:A picture from China every day 082.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:A picture from China every day 082.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} 99of9 (talk) 09:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Chuches

I'm confused. Can you tell me what this category is for? It has a spelling error in it, and obviously Category:Churches already exists. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Everything is about to come out of it after all the files being moved to new names, and it will be deleted. I estimate its existence should be less than 10 more minutes. If I do this again, I'll use a less transparent process off-wiki. --Fæ (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah thanks, I thought there had to be some good reason. I only noticed because some of my photos are in there. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh I see now, it was files that had the word "church" spelt wrong. I think I need to check my Flickr for that typo! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Pics from public-domain-image.com

One of the 14,000 public domain images uploaded from public-domain-image.com (full size: 2,560 × 1,920 pixels).

Hi Fæ - how much point is there in uploading these to Commons? Most of them are cr@p quality (very heavily pixellated / bad jpeg compression), and none give any information on location and minimal information on identity, which makes them pretty much worthless. Seems to me there is a need to be very selective over what is uploaded from there. - MPF (talk) 10:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that anyone who takes time to browse through Category:Public-domain-image.com will find plenty of interest. Some images are not great quality, but 'most' is a bit of an exaggeration. I am not uploading any more from the site, this was more of a one-off upload. If the community does make use of these (we can test them after six months or a year using Glamourous), then that's all to the public good. The site lacked decent categorization, so yes that was a challenge for this upload. I went ahead based on there being plenty of interesting content that the community can dip into, and have fun categorizing later. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
OK! Yep, some good ones there certainly. I was thinking of things like File:Sequoia tree.jpg, with very bad jpeg compression, and location only my guess based on the species' native range - I don't see much point in uploading it, it could have been left out of the harvest. Is there any way of getting on to the site owner to ask them to add locations? - MPF (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Sadly I doubt it could be done. The files are from a range of sources from government departments to private donations through to anonymous images; they also date from years ago. I have yet to spot an image that was not public domain though, so copyright is no problem, we just have to assess them as photos, without much in the way of context. --Fæ (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Metadata dates

Please note that "Date and time of data generation" in the picture metadata is the date the picture (the most likely) was taken and thus it should be used with {{According to EXIF data}} as the date parameter. "File change date and time" is just the date and time of the last edit of the picture and is usually irrelevant. ––Apalsola t • c 15:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not using this from the API right now as there is not a batch this relates to. If I do, I'll use this template (as I have for some). There was also a bit of confusion about which date to use - some EXIF data has several to choose from, meaning a slightly more complex logic depending on which are available. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

File mover

As suggested... Andrew Gray (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

defenseimagery.mil

Donald Rumsfeld answering questions from the press at the Pentagon on 11 September 2001, soon after an air plane was crashed, by terrorist action, into the same building. Part of Fæ's uploads from defenseimagery.mil.

Hello!

Do you plan to transfer all images from defenseimagery.mil to Commons? Regards, High Contrast (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

No. I don't think they would be educational enough to bring the full (massive) archive into Commons, though I believe there is a topic by topic case for representative samples of (historical) events, locations, regiments, equipment, etc. I may import another few hundred this weekend, and keep an eye on new releases, but I'm not going to start a 100,000 image upload as they are, frankly, rather mixed quality even though some images are wonderfully good, or highly interesting and relevant for Wikipedia and other projects.
However, I have already updated Commons with all remaining images from the defense news service.[2] Commons previously had these done, but nobody had been importing them since last summer, so there was a backlog. The news service is far more selective (around 100 photos per month I think) and high quality compared to the full joint defense images database. I'm planning on keeping the news service images updated (periodically, by hand), but that appears to only be a couple of hundred images per month, and some days there are no images released. --Fæ (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

File:U.S. Army Sgts 130325-A-WD324-004.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:U.S. Army Sgts 130325-A-WD324-004.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} High Contrast (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

File:German Naval Personalities of the Second World War A14906.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:German Naval Personalities of the Second World War A14906.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

File:The Last of Hm Submarine Shark. June 1940, South-east of Stavanger, Norway. HMS Shark, Powerless To Dive Or Steer, Just Before She Was Sunk by Her Own Crew To Prevent Her Capture by the Germans. the Pictures Were Taken F A30496.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:The Last of Hm Submarine Shark. June 1940, South-east of Stavanger, Norway. HMS Shark, Powerless To Dive Or Steer, Just Before She Was Sunk by Her Own Crew To Prevent Her Capture by the Germans. the Pictures Were Taken F A30496.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Lucky charms cereal.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Lucky charms cereal.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Kelly (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Nordic.com

The text on desciption Siv Fridleifsdottir, leder av Velferdsutvalget i Nordisk rad og alltingsmedlem, og Aleqa Hammond, partileder for det gronlandske partiet Siumut, pa Vestnordisk kvinnekonferanse i Reykjavik.jpg are swedish. Why are you written that is english?

It's now changed. Please do change any others you notice. Unfortunately there was no easy way of recognizing the different languages used at norden.org and as the default language for keyword is English, I used that template for all the uploads. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Possible duplicates

Hi Fæ, you might remember the checksum issues with your recent uploads from the IWM. Now, with your latest US military batch, there appeared to be some almost identical files in Category:N952AA (aircraft). While they do differ by a few KB I can't see any obvious changes in resolution or tinge that would justify keeping two alternate versions of these respective files. What do you think? De728631 (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Please do use {{Duplicate}} on whichever you think is inferior (probably keeping the larger or later images might be sensible).
I have spotted a handful of odd duplicates out of the 5,000 files uploaded this week. As a problem it appears to be below 0.2% as an error rate, possibly less. I think what happens is that the DoD employee realizes they made a mistake and rather than working out how to over-write the old file, creates a new one. There are two things I can do:
  1. I am already running through all my uploads (c.70,000 files) for identical checksum duplicates. This will pick up files that have been duplicated by later uploads from other contributors in addition to my own. You can see some at Category:Uploads by Fæ (duplicates).
  2. The files should use the same VIRIN, which is supposed to be unique. As my uploads use a template with the VIRIN in its own field, I could run through them and spot matching VIRINs, regardless of file sizes. This is a bit of work, but do-able. I'll hold off on this for the moment (I'm quite busy this month) unless the number of duplicates begins to look more worrying when more of the uploads start to get categorized.
I don't think the problem will get worse, I do a visual check and duplicates at the source tend to be near each other so are not that hard to be aware of. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I was also suspecting that the DOD use to change their own files every now and then. So I'm going to keep my eyes open for any duplicates in this area. Keep up the good work. De728631 (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Maxx12/notes

Fae, you have been very understanding and good to me, can you please come to my defence here against your colleage Ecemaml. He is continuing to defend this bully and his intimidation tactics. Fry1989 eh? 22:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Blimey, I'll take a look, though maybe tomorrow rather than tonight, and if it's too fraught I might not say much. By the way, I'm not an admin, you'll have to consider me a rogue outsider, who happens to have a viewpoint based on a large number of project contributions which may be more than any current active administrator (though happy to be corrected). This puts me outside of a 'college'; if it exists. :-) --Fæ (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Swartz

Sorry, I do not think I reverted anything. I think we had some sort of edit conflict. I had some strange edit where changes I added were not saved. --Jarekt (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries, have a hug from me for helping with Aaron's continued presence here. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help at Creator:Aaron Swartz

Thank you for your help at Creator:Aaron Swartz, it was a simple typo mistake on my part, and I am sorry about that. :( Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Your bot did it again

If it keeps up, it will leave me with no other option but to have it fully protected. Bidgee (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I've paused the bot and will use your file for a passive test later on today to make sure this is really fixed. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Re-running now. If it goes wrong, leave it and I'll fix it momentarily. My passive tests showed it working okay. The problem was the displayed field name on-wiki "Software used" was actually named "Software" when returned by the API. A hard sort of thing to diagnose at first glance. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Mobile uploads

Hi Fae, I've just deleted about 60 mobile uploads, but the total number of files keeps more or less the same. Is it going to stop? Otherwise, I'll give up reviewing these mobile uploads (but this time for all). What do you think about this mess? --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd give up for the time being and let these categories fill up. From the VP discussion, I think WMF development were supposed to be switching off the worst offender (the mobile web uploader, whatever that looks like) sometime today (Tuesday). At that point, the number of copyvios should fall off dramatically, I think. The pressure can then be on WMF dev. to think of better solutions, rather than relying on volunteer admins to use their time on this.
As a side note, my quota of Tineye searches rapidly finished (they have a daily quota), so that category will be a bit unused unless I spend time converting over to using Google image searches, which I think have no quota.
I'll let Faebot tick along using the routines it has right now, but in my 'real-life' I'm pretty darn busy for the next fortnight with GLAMwiki in the UK quickly followed by the Wikimedia conference in Milan. After that, I could have another look at this stuff and see if Faebot can help in different ways, depending on what WMF dev have invented by then.
In general, I would much rather see Commons Admins free to think about difficult cases, and find ways of putting pressure on the uploader to think more about what they are doing, or loosening the rules so that more people have the power to delete obviously bad copyvios. For example, our current groups of file reviewers and file movers, might be suitable to be granted the right to delete certain bot-assessed images that are determined to meet sufficient criteria to make it 90%+ likely that they are copyvios. One can draw a comparison with the automated tools on en.wp to automatically find copyright violating texts.
No particular hurry to invent new systems, but with more mobile uploaders bound to happen at some point, and Commons then rapidly growing from 15,000,000 to 50,000,000; we are just going to have to find new ways of getting better value from the Admins we have without stressing them so much that the numbers decrease further and the systems become unworkable. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

\[\[Category:Mobile uploads lacking EXIF data\]\]

See File:At home beautiful 2013-04-04 18-32.jpg. Your bot made errors when adding a category: a lot of backslashes appear in the wikicode. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, regretfully I made an obvious coding mistake in which string needed regex format and which did not. I thought I had corrected this almost straight away, but must have missed one or two; I doubt there are any more than this. Thanks for highlighting it. --Fæ (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I see. Well, if you've already fixed Fæbot, I guess there's no need to do anything more. If there are some other files with this problem, they will probably pop up sooner or later. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

US military photos categorization

I think will be good idea to have dedicated category(is) for such photos, instead of using generic Media needing categories as of XYZ. Looks like some preliminary categorization by place (like Afghanistan) is possible too. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the descriptions often have some relatively standard themes, such as the military location, military operation or the name of the regiment. The VIRIN also tells you which branch of the U.S. military is responsible for taking the photograph, so that could provide a high level category in the absence of any others. I will return to the categorization issue though it might have to be after the Milan Wikimedia conference this week.
By the way, I have been in touch with the Department of Defense about these uploads in the hope of a positive cooperation. I might try a second approach in a couple of weeks, before publishing the correspondence which explains their position on mass uploads from the imagery website. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Categories

This file, File:Breads prepared (3333187660).jpg, was initially given a completely incorrect set of categories? is this some automation error, which can be corrected before it happens again? i cant believe a person would give this the categories of Category:Cheese Category:Cooking Category:Home Category:Lunch and Category:Tomato-based food but not the category Category:Rye bread. Same problem with File:Nom pizza (2951413697).jpg, which i havent corrected yet.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the way File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) (talk · contribs) works; if there are tags on Flickr which happen to match existing categories on Commons, then these are added unless the option to add no categories is chosen during upload. Miia Ranta's photostream looked like a good source of museum related photographs, it seems unfortunate that the food ones have some odd categories on Flickr. If there is a pattern to the incorrect categories (such as "Cheese" is invariably being wrongly used), then let me know and I'll take the category off all files uploaded from this source by using the VisualFileChange tool. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

TWAM categories

Hope the trip is treating you well! I'm sitting with Robert from TWAM just now and I'm looking at the existing Category:Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums. It's a bit of a muddle between TWAM-sourced images and images of the collections, and I think as the residency kicks off we're likely to get a lot more images of the collection which aren't directly sourced from the institution. Do you mind if I reorganise this a bit to make the distinctions more clear?

At a glance, we probably want to shift the topic-specific groups from flickr to subsets of Category:Images from the Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums, and do a bit of other tidying. I would have gone ahead and done it, but thought I'd better check since you had a note on the main category :-). Thanks, Andrew Gray (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Happy for Robert to take responsibility for re-organizing. If you would like my help with a bit of batch-uploading let me know. :-) Cheers --Fæ (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Great. I'm looking at the batch uploading just now - our recommendation (John and I) is to upload to the Flickr Commons page, as they already have the infrastructure in place, and we can easily copy across from there. Saves duplication of effort, at least to begin with! Andrew Gray (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Take care, it is worth testing the work flow, I found all flickr upload tools problematic in the last week, even the standard upload wizard. Whether this is a temporary glitch I'm not sure. --Fæ (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Flag_raising_on_Iwo_Jima

hi, nice upload. i take it you are aware of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima.png. consensus was delete, but i kinda agree it's PD no renewal. maybe a deletion review is in order. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 18:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, I was not aware of the DR but was surprised this was not already on Commons, so this explains it. As far as I'm concerned the DoD release is definitive. If someone wants to sue them for damages, they can knock themselves out. In the meantime, I think this means our backsides are covered quite well. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Jón Gunnar Árnason

{{Autotranslate|1=|2=Files in Category:Jón Gunnar Árnason|3=plural|base=Idw}} Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, russavia (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Snowy Hervanta evening (5283765948).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Snowy Hervanta evening (5283765948).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Kulmalukko (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Bead fun.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Bead fun.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Signage (104329058).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Signage (104329058).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} -mattbuck (Talk) 13:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Missing EXIF data from iPhone users: a feature from everyone's favorite net nanny

Hi Fae,

Just wanted to update you about a recent discovery that may affect Faebot's operations – we were investigating why mobile uploads from some iPhone users (including myself) had missing/stripped EXIF data. Some googling revealed that this is an iOS 6 "feature" meant to protect users' privacy. I've been trying to figure out how to change this in my phone settings and haven't been able to so far, which bodes poorly for other iPhone users. The missing EXIF false positive rate is thus likely to be high, as over half of mobile web uploads are coming from iPhones.

Anyway, I wanted to make sure you were in the loop on this, but I'll let you stop worrying about Commons now and let you get back to enjoying Milan :) Ciao, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. If the iOS 6 strips EXIF data, when the app passes the file to Commons, we might want to specially add some default EXIF data which specifies the camera and whatever other basics are available (such as file creation date according to the phone). This would at least stop the file from looking quite as suspicious as files which have been nabbed from websites and uploaded; which is what we are really trying to find ways of trapping. --Fæ (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Egyptian Revolution photos

Hi, you had contacted the photographer, Adam Makary, on Facebook. I made an undeletion request for one of the photos at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFiles_in_Category:Al_Jazeera_files_with_bad_file_names and people have pointed out problems with the permission he gave. I think if he were to give permission to use them under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license with attribution to "Adam Makary of Al Jazeera" that might make it all right. I know you're busy, but would you mind trying to contact him again? Rybec (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thinking about it :-) There's a related DR which might bottom this out. It may have to be parked until the middle of next week due to some other commitments right now. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I've looked at this again, (link to undel request) and I find the rationales incomprehensible. Both the employer and employed photographer have given written permissions to release the files on a suitable free licence. The rest is, frankly, wikilawyering crud. There is no significant doubt in this case, bizarre.
If necessary I will write to the photographer yet again, though it can wait until I am no longer travelling; we are talking about a handful of images, not thousands, so this should not be a priority for me. I would not be surprised if he does not want to waste his time when he had already given me carte blanche to publish these on any free re-use licence of my choice. --Fæ (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Files uploaded by Russavia (Kashmir)

Heya, another similar problem. Category:Files uploaded by Russavia (Kashmir) -- can you possibly fix those photos descriptions to read "People of Kashmir". Much appreciado russavia (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Gimp service successful. --Fæ (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Fae's selected upload of April 2013

File:A C-130 Hercules with the 107th Airlift Wing fires off flares during a night formation training mission 120925-Z-ZP861-957.jpg
Example from my uploads from the Department of Defense.

On top of the world

Defy censorship

To bad i didn't have a good photo of it to upload!

Smallbones (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Wherein I spam your page with deletion notifications

...Trimming as I think the source Flickrstream is the same in these cases of trivial or potential copyvio original photos. I'm not planning on responding individually and the general point is accepted and the final bundle DR seems a better way to process these. --Fæ (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

{{Autotranslate|1=|2=Files in Category:Photos by Paul Holloway|3=plural|base=Idw}} Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, -mattbuck (Talk) 11:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Frankrike.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Frankrike.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Stefan4 (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

General upgrade?

Hi, a while ago you made this edit which removed a licence. I'm not sure if other files that used my custom templates were similarly affected, you might want to double check what happened, just in case many more files had similar problems. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It was only a handful that I changed like that before you stopped me. I have identified them. Do you want me just to revert my changes ? No. problem. For my education, why is it an issue ? They still end up with the PD-UKGov license. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. In this particular instance, the image was left without any licence after your change (see this version) and this was only noticed several weeks later when JarektBot marked the image as not having a licence. I don't know if others were similarly affected and left without any licence or whether some semi-automation in your work was the issue. I'm not expecting any particular action and don't believe there would be a need to revert other successful changes, just making you aware so that you might be able to double check. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes... I have a history of forgetting to add the license template, must pay more attention. These were all manual processes, and only to a few files, so if the bot didn't pick up any others then no harm done. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Sasha Kargaltsev (4).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Sasha Kargaltsev (4).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} russavia (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Gah, hang on, I'll write a Flickrmail like the last time this happened... Sasha seems such a lovely guy, I'm sure he'll try to help. --Fæ (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

category:Brachyura

Please do not use this category any more. Most of the organisms you filed under this category did not belong there. Thank you.  B.p. 13:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

{{Autotranslate|1=|2=Files in Category:Hallgrímskirkja|3=plural|base=Idw}} Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, russavia (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Ships Through the Ages (3).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Ships Through the Ages (3).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Pete F (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Problem with my gallery

Hello Fæ!

I want to thank you for taking the time to give me an answer. User upload is functionning and it is fine except that it does not give all the information I could find before on my gallery. I hope my gallery will function again some day. Best regards. Dinkum (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

LGBT History UK

Hi Fæ,

Thanks for your advice about joining the LGBT Free Media Collective. I've added our project to the Participants page under "Organization Partners" (hope this is the correct heading - there doesn't seem to be an explanation of what the different headings mean, but I think we're comparable to WikiQueer). I'd certainly be interested in meeting up at some point: I live in the London Borough of Croydon, so it's easy to get to central London. I should say however that as for participating in specifically Wikipedia events there might be something of a conflict of interest since my main focus these days in on our LGBT History UK project rather than Wikipedia. Basically what we're doing is similar to Wikipedia but with a specific focus on LGBT and the UK, and we have a much more permissive attitude on Notability. One of the aims is to have at least something about every local government district in the UK, but this obviously means including a lot of stuff of only very local notability.

I note you've contributed some photos of London Pride in different years. I'll try and use those on our Wiki (currently I've had not much success in finding out about Pride in earlier years, despite having taken part in it a number of times).

I'll have a go at creating a credit template as you suggest.

Thanks again,

Regards, Ross Burgess (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Domo Attacks Florida (5340049196).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Domo Attacks Florida (5340049196).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Vantey (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Frank Zappa mindet med statue i Vilnius.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Frank Zappa mindet med statue i Vilnius.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Stefan4 (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Island miljo fugle aender arkitektur.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Island miljo fugle aender arkitektur.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Stefan4 (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

{{Autotranslate|1=|2=Files in Category:National Theatre of Iceland|3=plural|base=Idw}} Affected:


Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Islands storste kirke.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Islands storste kirke.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Stefan4 (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Klip fra filmen Thors Saga under debatarrangementet Thors Saga - hvordan kommer Island videre?.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Klip fra filmen Thors Saga under debatarrangementet Thors Saga - hvordan kommer Island videre?.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Stefan4 (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Kopenhamn i miniatyr pa pa Energi- og Vandvaerkstedet 2010-03-23.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Kopenhamn i miniatyr pa pa Energi- og Vandvaerkstedet 2010-03-23.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Stefan4 (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

{{Autotranslate|1=|2=Files in Category:Leifur Eiríksson|3=plural|base=Idw}} Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Merethe Lindstroem, vinnare av Nordiska radets litteraturpris 2012 (1).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Merethe Lindstroem, vinnare av Nordiska radets litteraturpris 2012 (1).jpg|base=Copyvionote}} Stefan4 (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Merethe Lindstroem, vinnare av Nordiska radets litteraturpris 2012 (1).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Túrelio (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Ana Matronic joins New Order for Jetstream (323798455).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Ana Matronic joins New Order for Jetstream (323798455).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} January (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

{{Autotranslate|1=|2=Files in Category:Alvar Aalto|3=plural|base=Idw}} Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Resirkulering og farlig avfall.jpg

You wouldn't happen to know which country this was taken in, would you? The text on the sign is in Swedish, English and Finnish, and the description is in Norwegian. The sign is covered by FOP if it was taken in Sweden but not if taken in Finland or Norway. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I would guess (but don't know for sure) that as the original description is in Norwegian, this is most likely taken in Norway. Consequently you might have to opt for the PRP and raise it for deletion as Norden's cc-by-2.5-dk licence is probably over ambitious unless the Council there automatically puts its signage into the public domain. --Fæ (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This Comment

Dear Fae,

I know you sometimes flickrmailed people to get them to license images freely from flick--as in this case since Hans doesn't license his images freely unless I ask him to--like I have but if you intend to try to get people to license images freely on flickr, you should read the above message. It concerns the newly 'redesigned' flickr website and how it reduces a flickr account owner's ability to license an image freely. I dislike this feature of the new flickr design sadly. You have to hit the down arrow button next to a person's icon just to find the flickrmail option, too. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Drop by Drop competition winner.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Drop by Drop competition winner.jpg|base=Dw image source}} Stefan4 (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan4, would you convert this to a DR please? The release at Nordon.org appears to be a pretty clear one and we should probably look into whether this public campaign was the type where the materials get released into the public domain or not. --Fæ (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done --Stefan4 (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks :-) --Fæ (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm checking Category:Images from norden.org uploaded by Fæ for errors, in case you're wondering why you're getting so many deletion notifications.
What do you think of File:Mariehamn aland (3).jpg? This one is located in Åland (no FOP for artworks), but originally comes from Gotland (has FOP for artworks) and there are a few of these in Visby, covered by {{FoP-Sweden}} (see e.g. File:Betongfar i Visby, Gotland, Sverige, Johannes Jansson.jpg: same design, different location). It seems that the image is OK in the source country of the sculpture but not in the country of photography, and this is confusing me a bit. Also, if kept, how would it be categorised? It is one out of several artworks in the park outside Category:Åland Parliament Building, but there doesn't seem to be a category for the park. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for the delay, I missed your comment here in the ebb and flow of discussion.
I would agree with deletion on the precautionary principle for any photograph of identifiable artwork (unless covered under de minimis, such as in a wide landscape view) in public view where there is no freedom of panorama recognized. I believe it sensible to interpret this without regard for the law in the source country of the particular creative work. I find the lack of FoP of serious concern for open knowledge in any country that does not provide this as a public benefit, but that is a question of lobbying rather than a reason not to comply in reasonable ways with our interpretation of the law. Thanks for taking the time to browse through and double-check the collection from Norden. I hope you find much to enjoy looking at, and some to use elsewhere. :-) --Fæ (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I nominated this for deletion now. I'm a bit annoyed about lack of FOP and I think that lack of FOP mainly does bad things. I have taken a few photos of statues and other artworks in Mariehamn myself (including one of that sheep), but I've not been able to upload any of the photos due to the trouble of identifying sculptors and due to the fact that many of them are fairly recent. Even if you can afford paying royalties, you still need to spend a lot of time to find out whom to pay, and it does cause big problems for free knowledge. However, I think that a much more serious problem is my country's implementation of the Copyright Directive. The directive says that you should provide extra protection in digital environments. My country's government interpreted this to mean that the right to reproduce a copyrighted artwork in connection to a critical discussion of the said artwork no longer can apply if the artwork is in digital form. Result: This blog post was censored and the blogger was fined for violating copyright. This magazine reports about a magazine which was fined for publishing an article on the Internet, although the same, identical, article wasn't a copyright violation when it appeared in the paper version of the same magazine. In practically any other country, the blog post and the article would have been permitted under fair dealing, fair use or whatever. These days, criticism about various things is moving more and more to the Internet, and then the politicians decide to make it illegal to have criticism on the Internet due to copyright issues. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Drop by Drop competition winner.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Stefan4 (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Mariehamn aland (3).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Mariehamn aland (3).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Stefan4 (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

NCEP maps

In case you're interested, here's how the NCEP maps can be used: an animated map of daily precipitation for October 2002. odder (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice work. I'm sure that when the full 11 years worth are uploaded by Noaabot, there will be a lot more fun to be had by sampling and slicing the images in new ways. :-) Perhaps this image could start an example of ways NCEP maps are applied category? --Fæ (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Duplicates

You have uploaded the same image again: File:U.S. Army 2nd Lt. Lorne McCallum, with the 525th Battlefield Surveillance Brigade (BfSB), talks to role players during the Kosovo Force (KFOR) 17 Mission Rehearsal Exercise (MRE) May 6, 2013, at the Joint 130506-A-DI345-001.jpg and File:U.S. Army 2nd Lt. Lorne McCallum, with the 525th Battlefield Surveillance Brigade (BfSB), talks to role-players during the Kosovo Force (KFOR) 17 Mission Rehearsal Exercise (MRE) at the Joint Multinational 130506-A-DI345-001.jpg. Please be more careful with your batch upload what you are transferring. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 Comment Please stop uploading and check your uploads immediately for new duplicates. You can easily find more dupes. --High Contrast (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Your bot-like duplicates-uploads are malicious for Commons. Please stop immediately or I must block your account. --High Contrast (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for raising it. I'll take a closer look at what is going on this evening. I do have a duplicate check as the basis of these, so I am unsure why the API might not be picking these up, if they are exact duplicates as opposed to being nearly the same. --Fæ (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Could you email me an example of the deleted file and the deleted image page text, in particular the source location? I suspect something odd might be happening with the EXIF data from different sources causing the API to give these different checksums, but as these are deleted I have no easy way of verifying what happened. Even then the upload should automatically fail when re-uploading a deleted file.
By the way, "malicious" might be over-egging the problem. I do have a way of walking through large categories of images and listing duplicates (or categorizing them), so any problem like this should be fairly easy for me to personally correct, if they are files with the same checksum. Thanks Fæ (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
You can determine the problem of that duplicate-problem by using those dupes which still exist. I'm pretty sure it is the same reason. --High Contrast (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

test

Okay, I have dug out two examples, please avoid deleting these for the moment. Here's the data:

This shows that the two files have different metadata and checksums at source, consequently Commons has no way of detecting them on upload using the standard API, or any of the normal upload checks we expect to use. I have stopped uploading DoD files for the moment as this seems the source of the problem. What I may be able to do is build in a pre-upload VIRIN check (the DoD's unique numbering system). In the above example both files have the same VIRIN ("20130506-A-DI345-004") and it might be sufficient to query Commons for any files matching this in the title. If I can sort this out, then it should also be possible to go back through my past 13,000 images from this source and do the same check for any existing duplicates, which our standard bots and tools will not automatically identify as a problem.

Leave it with me, it seems solvable, but might take me a few weeks to implement something and get back to uploading from this (fairly reliable, but apparently not perfect) source. (Actually, "a few weeks" might be optimistic, not because this is technically difficult, but because I have a large backlog of volunteer work right now. This may be a couple of months, though this will make little difference for the DoD archive :-) ) Fæ (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Do you plan to stop your upload action during the weeks of improving this duplicate-problem? --High Contrast (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. I have no intention of creating problems for others, or myself to sort out. Don't worry, I have a track record of sorting out my own cock-ups, and I count this as one I need to go back and solve for myself. Thanks for highlighting the problem here, it was not an obvious one. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I have started some "non-identical" duplicate categorization at Category:Images from DoD uploaded by Fæ (duplicate), along with a link to some analysis. I am not yet applying the {{Duplicate}} template as I would like this to be done with some intelligence as to the creation dates and resolutions of near duplicates before semi-automatically marking the most likely duplicate. Again, this is a back-burner job, and I have quite a bit of other stuff going on, so this may take several weeks to be confident that the problem is not only analysed but can be avoided in the future. In the meantime related uploads are deferred. --Fæ (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you run this program before the images get uploaded or is this analysis only possible when the images are already on Commons? --High Contrast (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I am glad to say that this check can be done in advance of an upload, so this will pretty much kill any future problem of this type. What it fully means at the moment is unclear, as just because there is a match to a VIRIN on Commons, does not mean the image is digitally identical (or a mistake has not been made in quoting or using the VIRIN for multiple images), or that the one that can be uploaded might not be a better quality. Overall, my future process now looks good, I just want to test it for a bit, think about how to fix the backlog of near duplicates, and not be in any hurry :-). Unfortunately, at the moment, I think the cautious approach that I plan to follow, will mean that a small percentage of legitimate images would be skipped during batch upload. If someone (or me) creates a way of testing images that are near duplicates to check if a new one is, say, an uncropped version of an existing image or a higher resolution of the same image, then this could become a more robust process, rather than defaulting to unnecessary rejections.
Anyway, still working on it, if nothing else I might get the process to dump reports of future "skipped" images so that it would be possible to keep an eye on whether I am rejecting valid and useful content or not. --Fæ (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I have now built the VIRIN uniqueness check into the first of my part manual routines - this one checks the DoD news blog for recent images and uploads the latest under Defense.gov News Photo 2013. As there are fewer than around 100 images per month on the blog, I am going to run this one for real for a week or so, as a low risk soak test, before using the same check in my more general upload of interesting images from the archive site. This is quite a short routine, it gives me errors that look like this:

VIRIN appears to be in use already for 130402-D-NI589-369 (1 matches). Check http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=130402-D-NI589-369

Pleasingly this search call is used before I run a full SHA-1 file check, which involves downloading the full size image (from the DoD site, this might be more than 10MB per file), so an early search check personally saves me bandwidth and time. Though I note that the DoD blog has not been updated for two weeks http://www.defense.gov/photos/photolist.aspx?archivedate=5/1/2013, so if this looks "parked" next week, possibly more than a problem of their blog manager being on vacation, I might think of some different test runs.--Fæ (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

As the blog is still 'parked', I am running a test upload on recent published photos instead (126 photos uploaded to defenseimagery.mil yesterday). If the VIRIN check seems reliable, I'll start using again more widely.

Test sample paused at 30, the remainder to run after the following improvement—I would like to note a hypothetical future failure, in that if a batch includes duplicates, this means that non-identical duplicates could be uploaded within minutes of each other but only if the first is definitely unique on Commons. The current search test uses the standard search engine, which I believe may not match recent files. I am unsure how to interpret "recent", but from my own simple checks, a search such as this does not show any matches for many minutes after an upload. I will add a local array of VIRINs in a batch and double-check against this local set, in advance of any other external checks. It will be simple enough as an extra belt-and-braces check, and if my own best practice were to "bundle" up batch uploads so that one big run in a day is all that might happen (about 500 photos in a day might be reasonable to expect), this would almost certainly avoid almost every scenario where accidental near duplicates could possibly be uploaded when duplicates are occurring in the archive source. --Fæ (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Additional check stage added, and batch re-run.
Update as a rule of thumb, one batch a day might be an idea for the searches to be meaningful, it seems to take up to 12 hours for the search engine to find some new uploads. This would not stop incremental uploads, but if added to a batch that day, the batch must be restarted to check all VIRINs uploaded that day. --Fæ (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

My concerns about batch uploads

Hi Fae - I was not targeting you in particular nor anything you were working on this week. My concerns reflect what I have been seeing over the past several months, maybe some from you but also a lot of other uploaders. Not always bot uploads either, but bunches of images uploaded from Flickr or the NOAA website or various DOD sources. Not always bot uploads, people can move pretty fast with upload wizard too, somebody put several hundred NOAA images up early this year, with cryptic titles, and a lot of them duplicated content we already had. The only good reason I can see to upload faster than you can categorize is if the images are going to go away otherwise. Dankarl (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, if you have specific suggestions for how the last 11 years of NOAA weather map archives are best uploaded, it would be a good idea to chip in at Commons:Bots/Requests/Noaabot. Once a strong consensus is reached on naming and categorization, and I then update my batch upload script to make this work well (including the gif to png conversions), I will be uploading around 19,000 more files. With regard to others doing unpredictable stuff, when Noaabot is routinely keeping the maps up to date, this will establish a best practice for any future uploads and I have no doubt that anyone interested in helping this way will probably try to comply with the category and naming structures we have documented. In general, this probably makes having bots carefully agreed and engineered a way of avoiding the sorts of issues you are raising on the VP. --Fæ (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem with what you are doing with the weather maps ant think the systematic titles are appropriate. My problem witn NOAA titles is things like File:Post097b - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg (NOT one of yours). Dankarl (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
If you don't have filemover rights, I suggest you ask for them at Commons:Requests_for_rights#Filemover so that when you spot misleadingly or meaninglessly named files, like this one, you can just fix it while you are there. --Fæ (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Bot plan

When Flickr bots upload they include the descriptions from Flickr that may be copyvio of the text. We should decide if this is copyvio and if it is a bot may be needed to compare text from source. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The descriptions, titles and associated metadata that are loaded by tools such as Flickr2Commons are released on Flickr with the same license as any photograph, is there any reason to doubt this? --Fæ (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
It came up with File:Laboratory apparatus for reactions with fluorine gas.jpg that only licensed the image. I will accept that Flickr licenses cover text and images. I was just wondering after we had to change the description in the above image.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Numbers of duplicates in importing

Still getting significant numbers of duplicates coming through your import processes. It would be great if you could take a few extra moments to further check for dupes so we don't have to go through the duplication deletion process, which is slow and tedious. thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The number of non-identical possible duplicates is below 0.4% (based on my upload of c.1,500 images in the last 2 days). I have spotted a couple today, these are unavoidable by any method I'm aware of as they are:
  • Not discoverable by searches for the VIRIN (unique military code) as they have either been given different VIRINs at the source or an existing file has no VIRIN quoted.
  • Not discoverable by comparing SHA-1 hashes.
  • Valid quality upgrades to existing files (where they do not have the same VIRIN, or any VIRIN quoted), such as this example which provides Commons with an "archive quality" 4,468 × 2,964 pixels image from the official military archive along with original contextual metadata, as an alternative to the existing 640 × 424 pixels version from a newspaper website with inferior metadata and no EXIF data.
  • Potentially valid derivatives, such as changes in colour balance or tone rather than duplicates and probably should be kept, as per this discussion on the Village Pump. These should be identified as other versions rather than duplicates, such as this example uploaded today.
To achieve the magnitude reduction in possible duplication, I have added the following checks in advance of an upload, should an image fail any of these pre-checks they are not uploaded:
  1. Check for SHA-1 matches across Commons.
  2. Check for file names across Commons.
  3. Check for matching VIRINs using a text search across all files in Commons.
  4. Check for matching VIRINs in the same local batch upload.
It seems a mischaracterization to call the current uploads as having "significant numbers" of duplicates when we are talking 4 or possibly fewer suspected non-identical duplicates in a batch of 1,000 images; particularly when these mostly seem to be down to human error in the official source archive, or due to failure in proper identification by past uploaders of alternative non-identical versions of the photograph. I am open to suggestions as to how to do better than this. I estimate my improvements to the upload process this week has reduced the possibility of non-identical duplicates to less than 1/10th of what it was previously. You may be confusing older duplicates which you have been deleting recently, with new uploads since improving the upload process. I have been gradually working through the outstanding suspected duplicates identified on User:Faebot/SandboxL, none is an identical duplicate. --Fæ (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
On that list of duplicates, it looks like a file name search using the string component that looks like: "110406-N-YS896-005" would identify many of these. I'm not sure if that's easy to implement though. --99of9 (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean. My new uploads do precisely searches like this, and stop a new upload if there are any matches to the (supposedly) unique VIRIN. The Commons search engine does not do regex matches, so only dumb variations would be possible, which would lead to high levels of rejections of valid uploads. I suggest you park it for a while and see what the error rate looks like over the coming weeks. If the near duplicates hover at fewer than 20 or 30 files to look at for every 10,000 images from DoD uploaded, this would seem a highly desirable 99.7%+ quality target. My current total ever uploads from the DoD are at 15,000, so assuming I carry on being interested in doing uploads at the same rate from this source, there might be no more than 4 images a week to look at as non-identical duplicates. In practice, I suspect my volunteer time to do this will go down over the next few months as there are several other projects for me to focus on and the DoD uploads remain reliant on me picking 90 files at a time to earmark for uploading, whereas other, less problematic, public domain uploads are less demanding of my time when they get going (such as Faebot's Geograph categorization work, which happily churns away with me just taking the occasional glance at it out of interest). --Fæ (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't have any particular concerns, I don't deal with duplicates, so am not really across this issue. It just looked like the list of near-dupicates you provided would have been mostly eliminated by the string search within filenames. So if that's a check you already do, how did those examples (User:Faebot/SandboxL) get uploaded? Did you manually accept them? --99of9 (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The list is a one-off (retrospective) analysis created a week ago, to identify images uploaded before I started doing the VIRIN check. When I ran the analysis, around 4% of the uploads were found to be 'non-identical duplicates', many created at the source by human error of the military website uploaders, or by the DoD adding EXIF data to the image and thereby changing the SHA-1 we normally use on Commons to check for duplicates. With my new checks started this week, I estimate that the 4% of 'non-identical duplicates' has dropped to below 0.4%. By their nature, one can identify suspected non-identical duplicates using the text search for ID number as you suggest and I have implemented, but a visual check of what the differences are is needed to see if they are real duplicates, if one ought to be deleted, or if they are valid versions of the same original. Because I am doing the VIRIN check before uploading now, there is no point in running an update to the report, as I am no longer uploading any file that might have matches to any image on commons with the same VIRIN. :-) --Fæ (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, now I understand that VIRIN matches are behind you. Is there a list somewhere of the 0.4% that still pop up? --99of9 (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
There's no list currently as they will only pop up if spotted by the human eye at some point. I have identified two above that were put down as valid derivatives, and marked two for deletion prior to that. When more come up, I'll start a table on a sub-page with dates and conclusions so that in the longer term we can see if further refinements to this process are needed. Since this discussion started I've uploaded about five hundred more images and as these were all posted to the military archive yesterday, none appears to be a non-identical duplicate so far, however with older collections (as the c.180 photos I uploaded for Category:IMCMEX 2013 were) there is a far higher chance of poorly identified past uploads by other contributors. --Fæ (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Creating list of failures at /DoD failures. --Fæ (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Check needed?

You know I'm a new uploads patroller. Would you mind me removing your bot uploads from Category:Images from DoD uploaded by Fæ (check needed) once I've added them to a few reasonable categories? I recently got flak for taking pictures out of one uploader's maintenance category so I thought I'd better ask you before acting in this case. De728631 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do, I am very happy to see you working on my uploads. If it is too much of a drag, I can think of running a script in a few weeks time to automatically remove the check category from any image with, say, 2 or more categories added to it. --Fæ (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
That's cool. I don't mind clicking another "minus" in HotCat but such a script would probably be a good idea. De728631 (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

In related news, I really like your template User:Fæ/milim. Have you ever thought of offering that "gallery page" parameter for addition to the official {{Information}} template? De728631 (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Ha, that sounds like a big job of consultation. For a larger batch upload where an "ingestion template" might be unnecessary, any field can be added to the information template using the "Other_fields" parameter. Oddities like multiple dates or multiple locations, such as findspot, museum location or creation location as might be relevant for a museum artefact, can be added in this way, though it can be even easier just to add these as extra standard lines in the description field. There are some big ready-cooked templates about, like {{Artwork}}, but I only delve into those when I really have to. :-) --Fæ (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Larry Lewis, a Vietnam War veteran assigned to the 4th Army, 1st Brigade, now a part of Golf Company, 180th Infantry Regiment, helps to fire a World War II-era cannon to initiate a Memorial Day observance 130527-Z-BI488-538.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Larry Lewis, a Vietnam War veteran assigned to the 4th Army, 1st Brigade, now a part of Golf Company, 180th Infantry Regiment, helps to fire a World War II-era cannon to initiate a Memorial Day observance 130527-Z-BI488-538.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Pibwl (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Royal_Air_Force-_France,_1939-1940._C1493.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_Air_Force-_France,_1939-1940._C1493.jpg

Jumo 211 are V12 not radial engines but I don't know what is shown on the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.24.219.214 (talk • contribs) 2013-06-04 (UTC)

Please do correct the categories or the text if you are sure. I suggest changes to the description, which is the original one used in the catalogue, is changed by striking out the old text which you can do by useing the <s> and </s> syntax. --Fæ (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Native pink flower.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Native pink flower.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Thiotrix (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Geograph images in East Riding of Yorkshire

Hi, noticed you had created Category:Geograph images in East Riding of Yorkshire and were populating it by bot, but before this goes too far can you correct the category name as per the rest of the East Riding categories by inserting "the". Thus the category should be Category:Geograph images in the East Riding of Yorkshire. Many thanks. Keith D (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Faebot uses a bit of a name check routine for oddities (like Islands), so I'll add this in shortly and shuffle the current files into the new category. Thanks for highlighting it as an improvement. --Fæ (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Image watch request

In relation to w:2013 protests in Turkey

Possible terms: Taksim, Gezi Park, diren gezi park, #direngezipark, chapulling, chapuling, çapuling, çapulcu
Category: Category:2013 Taksim Gezi Park protests (and subcats)

Might be useful to also toss them into a temporary category for review. Mind that protests started on 28 May so uploads before this date are of no interest.

-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 11:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The process would be:
  1. Search for <terms>, trim duplicates and put filenames in a results array.
  2. Pull file list from recursive search of top category, trim results array of any matches.
  3. Get upload dates for results array and trim anything older than 28 May or 30 days from <today>.
  4. Create report (or possibly a backlog review category).
I'll see what I can do. :-) --Fæ (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The report is at User:Faebot/SandboxT, this is currently updating every hour, though I may reduce to once or twice a day if the changes are not that rapid. Happy to add more search terms etc., or take a look at any glitches, as you flag them. I have not created a backlog review category, this would mean "remembering" which files might be manually removed from such a backlog, and I'd rather keep it simple for only a few hundred files :-). --Fæ (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:130M falls at Caracol Brazil.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:130M falls at Caracol Brazil.jpg|base=Image source}} Denniss (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Converted to DR. --Fæ (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:10000 Ft.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:10000 Ft.jpg|base=Image source}} Denniss (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Converted to DR. --Fæ (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

File:200 GB 7200 rpm ide hard drive.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:200 GB 7200 rpm ide hard drive.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Denniss (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:U.S. Marine Corps Sgt. Shane Willis, a chief instructor assigned to a police advisor team with 2nd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, teaches handcuffing procedures to Afghan police recruits 120208-M-MM640-785.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:U.S. Marine Corps Sgt. Shane Willis, a chief instructor assigned to a police advisor team with 2nd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, teaches handcuffing procedures to Afghan police recruits 120208-M-MM640-785.jpg|base=Image license}} JuTa 19:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a failed move of this original file. I have asked for an admin to sort it out. If nobody does this, it may be worth raising on COM:AN. The image is public domain as a Department of Defense photograph. --Fæ (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done --Fæ (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Field Manual

How u know that pics like these r in the field manual.--Sanandros (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing these out, now removed. I was looking for matches to put rifle types against and I'll have to look again at those. --Fæ (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
And then I have another question: U added for the 2nd time to the pics of the Category:Haqqani network facilitator arrest in Zurmat district the Category:Paktia Province in the War in Afghanistan (2001-present) but the Haqqani cat is already part of the Paktia cat. And what means Category:Afghan National Security Forces exactly? Cause there are some Marines in it and some Afghan Commandos which i think shouldn't be in the cat.--Sanandros (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree Afghan National Security Forces is too wide a category, I have dropped it from my matches. I'll take a look at the other question later today, as potential parent/child matches could do with a better solution, even if they are done on an exceptional basis. Note, this is part of my drive to significantly reduce the size of Category:Images from DoD uploaded by Fæ (check needed) by finding relevant categories and then removing the check needed category when two or more matches are found. I have managed several thousand and am still tidying up. Considering how categories can be more than a little haphazard, I'm likely to need to do this in more than one step, though I believe it is better to have some relevant categories, even if not ideal, so that other members of the community interested in these topics can find them and help to refine them further, rather than letting tens of thousands of images languish indefinitely in a large bucket category. :-) --Fæ (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
For your interest, I have published the search array at /DoD matching. If you spot any improvements, I'd be happy to work them in.
Right, now added a "negative match" to how this is done. So this line in my search array #!Zurmat [Dd]istrict;Paktia Province in the War in Afghanistan (2001-present) should ensure that the Paktia Province category is not added to any image where the words "Zurmat District" are found. Let me know of any other such exclusions might be appropriate and are a practical problem (obviously there's no point increasing the workload for hypothetical matches). --Fæ (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Till now I didn't saw anything to improve. Do u check that we don't have the pics twice and is that the reason for not having pics cats like Eager Lion 12?--Sanandros (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The changes will affect new files rather than change categories on the files already there. I can revisit these later in the week (a batch change using VisualFileChange would pick up those in a child category). There shouldn't be a problem in using categories like Category:Eager Lion 2012, I have created a few other "Military operation" categories and adding all three of project, organization and place categories is not actually duplication. --Fæ (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

subst: User:Fæ/milim

Would you mind looking to subst: the template so that it converts to {{Information}}. Having so many pages that relate back to user subpage template is problematic in not maintaining uniformity. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It is considered good practice for more complex large uploads to use a customized ingestion template. This means that any format changes (such as to permission, licence, field mappings, updates) can be done centrally by changing one page, rather than tens or hundreds of thousands of pages. Changes such as the ones you have made today to File:A DC-10 aircraft releases a fire-retardant solution to help stop the spreading of fires in El Paso 130612-Z-WF656-031.jpg are not ideal, as information about the image is being lost (such as the posted date, which is not the same as the taken date and represents the effective date of the public domain release, or the VIRIN which by now only appearing in the title, may make future duplicates harder to detect) and consistency for the batch upload is lost so this image will not benefit from any future improvements. We do not have a sure single place to recognize all such templates, but a number are listed at Category:Data ingestion layout templates, where you can see I'm in good company. Currently, more than 21,000 images use this template and there has not been a single problem reported in using it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
What a garbage response. If you need a customised template put these things in the template namespace, where they belong. Don't personalise these things, it isn't about you. You can achieve the other components quite adequately be use of something like a {{milim}} template within the other fields = . Subst: your templates, make it easier for all users who may edit, they can then see and use documentation, and equally open to update. Tucking it away in your user space, undocumented, with undocumented customisations is unnecessary and bring zero benefits to the project.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I may have misunderstood what you were expecting here. I am quite happy to migrate this ingestion template from my userspace to template space (as {{Milim}}) and I'll look at finding an efficient way of doing that. As for commons "isn't about you", keep in mind that Commons works through unpaid volunteers like me. Allowing volunteers a trivial sense of satisfaction or minor recognition, for contributing to open knowledge by making media files more accessible, under an understandable re-use licence or better categorized, is a part of making this happen. Commons should, and must, remain a volunteer-centric project that folks like me, with our small fragile egos, enjoy contributing to. If I were forced to contribute under a rotating anonymous address, I would soon lose interest and spend my time on other projects that give me some form of reward beyond pure self-sacrifice.
Thanks again for your suggestion. --Fæ (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Vapor-Olinda Ex Kennemerland.jpg

I've been reviewing some of the Category:Media without a license: needs history check and see you reviewed this image back in 2010 but there was never any copyright tag attached, just the claim that it was in PD, so I don't know how you determined it was a PD image. Would you like to look at it again? Cheers. Ww2censor (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I have had a quick look at it (busy with other things this evening) and I'll look at it a bit more over the next day or two. I have no memory of it, or the context from years ago, so the copyright status look opaque to me too (I have yet to search my email). I have found it at higher resolution at http://www.histarmar.com.ar/MarinaMercanteExtr/Marina%20Mercante%20Brasil/Mossoro-Pedreiras/Olinda-2-.jpg so there may be various sources with confusing copyright. Due to naming, the photograph predates 1934, making it more than 100 years old, so I may have made this assessment based on the the author being "unknown" (desconhecido, Portuguese) and the 70 rule would apply in Europe (based on the history, Europe would be most likely). I'll ponder it, and I'll consider removing the verification template as my mistake in choosing how best to represent the status, when I have a bit more time. --Fæ (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done Nothing new has come to light on this. I have removed my licence verification template from 2010 and instead applied the PD-old-70 template based on the photographer being declared as unknown. This may be challenged, but for the moment I can find no more reliable source than those quoted. I have uploaded the higher resolution scan I found and will add that as an alternative source, however copyright is not declared at that source either. Thanks again for pointing this out, my action in 2010 could have been misleading and the current status is a fairer reflection of what we know. --Fæ (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Stamps of Hungary

Hi, I have created a section at Commons_talk:Stamps/Public_domain#Hungary. Could you help out by finding a suitable reference? I would be happy to see the Hungary section go back in once this is added. Thanks in advance. --Fæ (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Please look here. Best regards, --Cekli829 (talk) 09:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Bots/Requests/Noaabot#Discussion

PDF versions are available at ftp://ftp.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/dwm/ for the first week of 2003 through 2009. More historical pdfs are available at http://www.lib.noaa.gov/collections/imgdocmaps/daily_weather_maps.html . Cheers. Smallman12q (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks for pointing that out. I'll put this on Noaabot's backlog. :-) --Fæ (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely disgusting attacks on yourself

en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-07-16/Special report has just been brought to my attention, and I am absolutely dumbfounded that this has been allowed to stand as is on the project. As you are fully aware, I am banned from English Wikipedia for the harmless posting of a harmless comic on my userpage, and now no longer have access to my talk page on that project. I was going to send this to you privately, and also cc it to English Wikipedia Arbcom, but in doing so, it would not be see the light of day, especially given that the many English Wikipedia Arbcom members have for many months now refused to enter into dialogue on various issues, and actively ignore concerns sent to them by many editors, myself included. This Arbcom is probably the worst that I, and others, have ever seen. I want to make specific comment in relation to the following:

claims that Fæ "has violated or supported the violation of (alleged) sex workers' privacy while complaining about comments about his own amateur pornography which he freely uploaded onto Wikipedia".

A link to en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence#Response_to_Fae.27s_comment_on_me was also provided. I remember this "case" very clearly, because in explaining to you on IRC, why I did not support your RfA here on Commons, I raised Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prostitutes in the street of Reeperbahn.jpg as one of the reasons as to why I didn't support your RfA at that time. You may remember this conversation? Maybe not. Anyway.... The description of the file in question as it stood at the time of the DR was:

Fæ/2013
{{delete}}
Description Prostitutes are standing in the front of the building who reside there for sex in the street of Reeperbahn in district of St Pauli, Hamburg, Germany.
Date
Source originally posted to Flickr as Name of file removed
Author name removed
Permission
(Reusing this file)		 {{User:Flickr upload bot/upload|date=22:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)|reviewer=Otolemur crassicaudatus}} {{cc-by-2.0}}

Category:Prostitution at the Reeperbahn Category:Prostitutes

After editing by yourself, the description was changed to:

Fæ/2013
{{delete}}
Description Street of Reeperbahn in district of St Pauli, Hamburg, Germany.
Date
Source http://linkremoved (my note You also removed the title of the image as named on flick)
Author name removed
Permission
(Reusing this file)		 {{User:Flickr upload bot/upload|date=22:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)|reviewer=Otolemur crassicaudatus}} {{cc-by-2.0}}

Category:Reeperbahn

The edits by yourself demonstrate that you had nothing but respect for the issues that were raised, but after my discussion with you on IRC, it was obvious that you were not aware of one the issues. That being that the Reeperbahn is a red-light district in Hamburg, that is renowned for its prostitution and debauchery. After you were made aware of this, which you weren't previously (which is obvious by your comments on the DR stating that it was a "high street") you agreed with me that in that case it should have been deleted (as it was). In relation to Cohen's (one of your harassers) comments that the photo was left in the English Wikipedia article is irrelevant; you have never edited that article before, nor did you insert the photo, nor did you even look at the article (which you mentioned to me at the time of our IRC discussion). His comments in relation to the article are simply included to make you guilty for it's usage on English Wikipedia; which you obviously are not. Since then, I have been aware of numerous cases where you have dealt with privacy discussions, and have argued for deletion of those files. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Skinheads in Brighton, England-2006.jpg is but one such example. Yet somehow, it is portrayed that you are only worried about images which either are or aren't of yourself, yadda yadda yadda. Sorry but that is absolute bollocks. The Signpost "Special Report" is nothing but a total hatchet job and a pisspoor attempt at character assassination, and I sincerely hope that you will make the twits on English Wikipedia who are buying into such rubbish aware of this. russavia (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree totally with russavia, the Signpost "Special Report" was the most appalling piece of unprincipled ad hominen attack on you, and that the report on the arbcom case could accuse you of unlawful conduct is beyond belief. Apparently BLP principles applied so strictly on the WP mainspace simply don't apply on Signpost. Disgusting! BabelStone (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Movement

Glad to see you are staying involved and agree that arbcom needs to be reeled in. Hope to see you back editing in a year. Unfortunately not all editors with stand this groups attacks as well as you have. James Heilman, MD (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Geograph problem

Hi Fae, I think I've worked out one of the Geograph problems that is holding us back. Tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of images were moved by cat a lot before the fixes at the beginning of the year that enabled cat a Lot and Hotcat users to remove the uncategorised geograph image. Those that were cat a lot moved last year are still uncategorised geograph images, but they don't have the check cats feature that removes the geograph uncategorised template if you use hotcat to recategorise them. Would it be possible to use a bot to amend them so that recategorisation by hotcat automatically removes the cat needed template, and hotcat gives you the same one click option to mark their cats as checked as it does on other geograph images? WereSpielChequers (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I would have thought this would be straightforward, might take a week for Faebot to do the job. Can you provide some examples for me to think about and test against? --Fæ (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure:
File:Temple Church, Temple, London EC4 - Carving - geograph.org.uk - 1223119.jpg
WereSpielChequers (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The demon in that photo is a lot of fun.
Here's what I see in the wiki code:
{{Uncategorized-Geograph|gridref=TQ3181|year=2011|month=February|day=26}}
[[Category:Temple Church, London]]
I think what you want to resolve this problem would be for Faebot to:
  1. Go through the subcategories of Category:Images from the Geograph British Isles project needing categories by date
  2. Check they use the {{Uncategorized-Geograph}} template (presumably all of them)
  3. Check for those that have one or more non-Geograph categories added already and remove the Uncategorized template
  4. Add the {{Check categories-Geograph}} template
  5. If there are 3 or more non-Geograph visible categories, don't bother with the Check categories template
These steps would, I think, resolve the issue. Let me know if your expectation is something else.
I will try a test run on the smallest of the date categories (it has under 900 files) to check how the numbers stack up. Plus I have to work out how I am supposed to fill in parameters for the Check categories-Geograph template. --Fæ (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I would be cautious about presuming that any images don't need their cats checking unless you can confirm that they have been manually edited. Some of the bot categorised images have loads of images, though I don't know if they overlap with this group. Though if you can confirm that the image has been categorised into the category for an individual building you are pretty safe. WereSpielChequers (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
No worries, I'll drop step 5 then. I'll do a dry run in my spare time, so we can think through a test set.
I have created a report for the test run at User:Faebot/SandboxGeo. It did not take long, so I'll run one of the large categories in the same family through the analysis script and tack it on the same page. --Fæ (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Update: this is slightly on the back-burner after spending so much time on the London boroughs script. It remains on my back-back-burner but it looks like an easy win to return to in a few weeks. --Fæ (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
File:Lindisfarne Castle, Holy Island, Northumberland - geograph.org.uk - 1231762.jpg reminds me how common a problem this is, I think there was a period of months when Catalot could add categories but the left images in this uncategorised state without hotcat being able to remove the check cats code. WereSpielChequers (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

WereSpielChequers (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec12}} to your friends' talk pages.

re: Keeping track of uploads

Hi Fæ, Thanks for setting up the template, I will use that from now on - still feeling my way through the workings and idiosyncrasies of wikimedia, but enjoying it! thanks again,

Casgliad(Tom).

Numerous duplicates of IWM photos

When I started categorisation of the images in British Army 1939-1945, I found a lot of low resolution copies, most uploaded around 2006 by Bukvoed. But after I created Tanks and AFVs of the British Army 1939–1945 (and later British Tanks and Armoured Fighting Vehicles 1939–1945) and moved relevant files there, I faced with dozens of such duplicates in it (example). Bukvoed is not against deletions, of course, but I don't know who I should ask to get some help from a bot owner. Thank you beforehands. Ain92 (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm going to create subcategories for British Army 1939-1945 this or next week, but it's very hard to categorise 3,500+ images via HotCat. You are a bot owner, so could you help or at least comment this? Ain92 (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    I would be happy to write a short script or use visualfilechange to do the categorization. How would you suggest this can be automated? I would need something on the image page, or possibly in the EXIF data, to identify what file should be categorized where. BTW, I'm travelling tomorrow and will be pretty unavailable until about Tuesday next week, so this may take at least that long. --Fæ (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't know what instrument you can use, but I think that most of such photos can be found through "IWM Photo Number" and "IWM Photo No." search requests, then the script should find the file with the same {{User:Fæ/IWM|catalogue_number}}. Ain92 (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    • So what do you think? The problem seems to be similar with the DoD duplicates. Ain92 (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
      Yes, it is a similar challenge. If the catalogue number is consistently used, then I should be able to do a run through all files and produce a report of likely duplicates. I think it will be several weeks before I would think about this, probably not until July now due to a lot of chapter business going on. I'll remember to drop you a note when I do get back to it. Adding to my to-do list at the top of the page... --Fæ (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I have run a short test, and catalogue number is very haphazard as it gives a majority of incorrect matches, mainly because it is so short. I will try database number (oid) and see if that is realistically useful. --Fæ (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible non-identical duplicates by matching database number

I'm running through the whole of British Army 1939-1945. Some possibles may be missed, due to search calls timing out, but this should be a very low percentage and probably fixed by running again when some have been corrected. Even a quick look shows that the obvious false matches seem due to a short database number; a bit of thought could fix this no doubt. I may update this table when the report completes, but I'm leaving further tweaks or other runs for today. --Fæ (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible duplicates in British Army 1939-1945
-> moved to User:Ain92/List of possible IWM duplicates

This seems a relatively small number of actual duplicates (ignoring legitimate alternatives, such as crops, which should be left as separate files). These can be fixed by adding {{Duplicate}} by had to the inferior file. This search did not go into the child categories. I'll consider running a more comprehensive report, but as so many legitimate variants are included, this cannot be as simple as automatically adding 'duplicate' categories, or templating some for deletion. --Fæ (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much. Could you please write updates right to User:Ain92/List of possible IWM duplicates? I found that E 5366 (old/new) was ignored because it can't be found via searching for a long number and I'm sure that some others too (IMHO, quite a lot), so I can't agree that the number is relatibely small. I'm going to wait when your bot finish the task and then look at it. Maybe it'll be real to try to maintain it manually. Ain92 (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • What I suggest is that I adapt the report to include two lists for all articles in any named category, which show suspected duplicates for database_number and catalogue_number (I have put a filter into the loop to skip reporting searches returning more than 5 matches, these will invariably be due to false matches against a too short catalogue number to be meaningfully unique). In the meantime I'll write an update version to your sub-page when the report finishes a re-run. I can set this up to, say, run periodically (like once a week over the next few months) and write an update automatically - overwriting the current list, if it changes - or to include a family of categories, such as Category:Collections of the Imperial War Museum and all its children, which is actually a lot of search calls (same as the total number of articles, large enough so that a search rate of 4 per minute would take 24 hours to complete the report, so I don't think would be sensible to do this sort of report more than once a month, or when an update is manually requested because someone has been working on it and would like to see this reflected in the update). Again, no hurry, we can slowly improve the report, or sit back and think again about how better to detect close duplicates, perhaps with sufficient accuracy to automatically add {{Duplicate}} templates to the images, or add to them to a backlog of problem files for review. --Fæ (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The list is not full even now, e. g. File:IWM-E-2872-Marmon-Herrington-Tobruk-19410508.jpg/File:A Marmon-Herrington Mk II armoured car armed with an Italian Breda 20mm gun, near Tobruk, Libya, 8 May 1941. E2872.jpg, I don't know why. So I can't even estimate number of dupe suspects to decide what to do with them. Ain92 (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I have had a quick check through this example. A search for E 2872 Imperial War will only match the second file, not the first. It does get found if "Imperial War" is dropped, but we are likely to start getting a very large number of irrelevant files with such short searches. I'm open to suggestions for alternatives. I am re-running the report with matches similar to E 2872 IWM which might be better overall, worth an experiment. :-) I may run out of time this week (there's a chapter AGM next weekend), don't be offended if I park further follow-ups on my to-do list for a week or two. --Fæ (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Maybe we can try E 2872 iwmcollections.org.uk? And what AGM do you mean? Ain92 (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Updated the report with "IWM" and running for a second time with "iwmcollections.org.uk" as you suggest. You can read about the UK Wikimedia Chapter Annual General Meeting here. --Fæ (talk) 04:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Well, the database_number is not actually a number but code including letter(s), and unfortunately searching gives, for example, CH 17187 when looking for H 17187. However it seems that no probable duplicates can be out of our scope, so there're no more than three hundreds of duplicates. Ain92 (talk) 09:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Actually, I found more files that have the same database number, although they are not duplicates literally: File:Abandoned Bv 136C at Tromso 1945.jpg/File:German Military Aircraft 1939-1945 CL2916.jpg. I think we should do systematically: first search for "%database_number% Imperial War", then "%database_number% IWM", then "%database_number% iwmcollections.org.uk" and then "%database_number% iwm.org.uk". After this repeat all the same with catalogue "number" (although I haven't thought out a way to exclude actuations with different letters). And in the end we should mark the files that repeat in the resulting list. Ain92 (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
              • It's not too much of a problem to put the results in an array and build it so that each key file is unique before spitting out the report. The array of results would be something like [<keyfile>, [<matching file>, [<testtype>]]] and one could nicely print it out as an indented list. I ought to get on with other things this week, so I'll probably look at this again next week. :-) --Fæ (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Played with it a little today. Results are looking like: 

File:Soldier and Girl Sleeping Art.IWMART16843.jpg 
    [u'File:Mosques in Great Britain- Islamic Architecture in the UK, c 1945 D24084.jpg', [[u'24084', 'IWM', 'database_number'], [u'24084', 'Imperial War', 'database_number']]] 
    [u'File:The Royal Navy during the Second World War A24084.jpg', [[u'24084', 'IWM', 'database_number'], [u'24084', 'Imperial War', 'database_number']]]

Which means it is there, apart from some formatting to turn the hard to read nested array into a wiki-report. A bit of cleverness with catalogue_number should solve the problem of it matching rather useless results such as when "E" in the number can match any "E" on the page. --Fæ (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done --Fæ (talk) 05:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, thanks for your work. However, unfortunately I still found at least one dupe that hasn't been not listed: MH3751. Why wasn't it found via "IWM" searching? Ain92 (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
    • This is because the report is only for Category:British Army 1939-1945 rather than child categories, and MH3751 is one of those children. I'm rerunning the report to recursively pick up all children. This means that rather than c.1600 files, the report covers c.3800 files. Hopefully it will complete by tomorrow. --Fæ (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Aha, understood. I shouldn't rejoice that there're so few duplicates because we have to take into account thousands of images that haven't been examined yet (after "the British Army" I'ld like No. 5 Army Film and Photographic Unit to be checked first of others), so if there're 90 candidates for ~1600 files (about every 18th image is suspected), then there would be 200+ for 3800, and I don't want to "rake" this number manually. Ain92 (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Sure, I'll look at that one next and put it on a separate page, maybe in a week or more. There are a lot of calls to the search engine behind this (now at about 12,000 requests for the current one) so I'm cautious about running this too often. I'm finding problems with the category contents changing which can put a halt to the report; as it takes all day to run, this is not unlikely. I'll ponder this a bit more, but it may mean re-structuring further so that each child category is handled one at a time rather than recursively bundling all the pages into one big list. There's also a pragmatic consideration of the law of diminishing returns on my time, so I might yet say the report is "good enough" without doing a lot more work on it, even if it means aborting and re-starting a few times when I run it. :-) --Fæ (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
        • The script has frozen up about 3 times in the last day trying to generate the report. As well as a minor tweak to make the calls a bit more robust, it now looks 4 deep into the category hierarchy and looks at each category separately, which might avoid the category changing problem (if that's what it is). The list of categories automatically generated looks as below. --Fæ (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Category{[[Category:Allied Forces in the United Kingdom 1939–1945]]},
Category{[[Category:British Medical Services in the Second World War]]},
Category{[[Category:British Tanks and Armoured Fighting Vehicles 1939–1945]]},
Category{[[Category:Tanks and AFVs of the British Army 1939–1945]]},
Category{[[Category:The British Army in Burma]]},
Category{[[Category:The British Army in Burma 1944]]},
Category{[[Category:The British Army in Burma 1945]]},
Category{[[Category:The British Army in France]]},
Category{[[Category:The British Army in France 1939]]},
Category{[[Category:The British Army in France 1940]]},
Category{[[Category:The British Army in Italy]]},
Category{[[Category:The British Army in Italy 1943]]},
Category{[[Category:The British Army in Italy 1944]]},
Category{[[Category:The British Army in Italy 1945]]},
Category{[[Category:The British Army in North-west Europe 1944–45]]},
Category{[[Category:The British Army in the United Kingdom 1939–1945]]},
Category{[[Category:The Liberation of Bergen-belsen Concentration Camp]]},
Category{[[Category:British Army 1939-1945]]}
✓ Done report update with 206 results. It took about 3 goes before it ran all the way through, so this is probably about as large as we should sensibly make it. I'll set it up with No. 5 Army Film and Photographic Unit as requested as see if that will work too. --Fæ (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, actual form of report is quite convenient, but is it possible to write dimensions of the images? And unfortunately we have not only E128/CE128, O66/RAE-O66 and H1670/CH1670 marked as possible dupes, but also H25/H2536/H2506/H2530 and even Art.IWMPST3378/D2732. =( Ain92 (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done see User:Faebot/SandboxG, with 70 results. Again this took a few re-runs before it completed. --Fæ (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Fae's upload of the month

An official portrait of Chesty, the next mascot of the United States Marine Corps.

http://www.airliners.net

Hi Fae!

I have noticed your recent airliners.net uploads. A good idea to tranfer them to Commons.

But cropping the files befire uploading them would be a great thing. This "airliners.net"-strip on the bottom is disurbing. If this is not possible, please consider to use, for instance, the {{watermark}} for such uploads. What do you think? Best regards, High Contrast (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

With my old version of OSX all I have is sips, which is bizarrely limited for manipulating images and cannot do this transform. The alternative is to batch process the images locally by hand using photoshop, which makes a bit of a several-stages mountain out of it. Earlier on I raised this up for suggestions at Commons:Bots/Work_requests and it probably will be an easy fix for someone with the right tools to hand to do the lot in one go (I have seen similar fixes done for large batches). If not, I might fix this myself from my laptop under Windows in a few weeks or so.
I was going to stick to categories, but I agree that the watermark template is well understood and would make it easy to keep tabs on these if the categories get moved about. I have added it to the 166 files uploaded so far, and all new uploads by me from the site will have the watermark template by default, unless I can work out a local fix. There are several thousand photographs available from the one photographer, covered by the OTRS ticket.
I think that the credit bar/watermark is always the bottom 12 pixels, but I have yet to test that out in practice and the formula might have to vary by image dimensions. --Fæ (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is not so easy to crop all images with the same script. I was thinking of User:Cropbot for help. But anyway, it is good to have these aircraft images on Commons. The cropping can be done sometime in the future. Best regards, High Contrast (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
If it's any help, ImageMagick can apparently work on anything back to 10.5, and is pretty good at this kind of standard pixel crop. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Andrew. That looks promising as a command line call I can use from within Python. However I get:
Library not loaded: /opt/X11/lib/libfreetype.6.dylib
Referenced from: /opt/ImageMagick/bin/convert
Reason: Incompatible library version: convert requires version 15.0.0 or later, but libfreetype.6.dylib provides version 13.0.0
Which is a drag, I'm just researching how I can update my freetype on Leopard, easy_install does not find it and work-arounds I can see via googling look risky. --Fæ (talk) 05:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I have PIL installed and working on my Windows laptop (with Python v2.7), so I think pragmatism wins out, and I'll just have to stick to doing any image work on a small screen. Thanks for your help. Fæ (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This is strange …

Hi Fæ,

just FYI: I just noted that this image you uploaded from MoD actually comes from Commons (original). Perfectly legal, since it's PD anyway – they even acknowledge the uploader's user name in their description. I guess we should delete the one from MoD as a duplicate? --El Grafo (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I have marked my upload as a duplicate and added a link to the MoD version. These cannot be found by the normal SHA-1 hash check, as the EXIF data has been altered. My uploads check for the MoD filename ("45155239.jpg") along with "MOD" and so if I try another batch upload in the future, this should be skipped automatically if there is a reference to it in the text. Let me know if you spot any more oddities and I'll be happy to sort them out. --Fæ (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I didn't spot any more files like that, but on the other hand I didn't really look for them ;-) I have no idea how many images they took from Commons, so this might be a bit of an overkill but: they put a Wikipedia in the "source" field of the EXIF, so as long as they did that for every image it should be rather easy to filter them out. Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Good tip. I have added a check for "Wiki.edia" in the xml "Source" field, just in case. Fæ (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Dates of MoD images

Draw your attention that dates including something smaller than seconds are not recognised by the engine and so aren't localised (example). Ain92 (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I was not aware of this being an issue. I'll take a look at this before going to retire for the night.
✓ Done by tweaking the uploaded metadata and retrospectively fixing the files uploaded so far. --Fæ (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Thank you for all your hard work -- Steinsplitter (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that'll keep me on the project for another day. :-) --Fæ (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Especially thank you for your recent airliners.net uploads! --High Contrast (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Glad they are being used, this batch is nearly done. Nice to see praise from one of my last RFA opposers. --Fæ (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's your Wikiwings

Aviation Barnstar
Thanks for your recent help in uploading KvW's images from airliners.net to Commons. If interested, there's still a lot more to go :) russavia (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
It would be a pleasure. Now the routine is set up and de-bugged, it would be fairly easy to change it for other photographers. :-) --Fæ (talk) 05:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, let me make up a spreadsheet for you. But in order to do some of them, we will need a paid membership -- perhaps we hit up a friendly chapter to fork over $15 for 3 months in order to get the unwatermarked versions (the black bar will still be present mind you) of some of the photos. russavia (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate problem

Hello!

It seems that some images from the British MOD are alread available on Commons. Examples:

Did you run some duplicates-check-script before the upload? Regards, High Contrast (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, here are the checks I run and the reasons they have not worked, the main one being that these uploads do not give a specific link to the source. Happy to add more if you can think of any that are practical:
  1. Filename check (avoids odd over-writes)
    • These files use different names.
  2. Check Commons search results for the name used by the MOD for the file. The searches look like this, but take something like several hours or a day for the Commons search engine to apply to newly uploaded files.
    • These past uploads make no reference to the MOD file name, in particular they do not link to the url where the file can be found (which would have given a match), hence there is no chance of finding the image in this way. As far as I can tell, the source links given do not actually give any MOD website match, though the general search possibly worked in the past.
  3. SHA-1 hash check of file, using the standard Commons API.
    • These past uploads have altered EXIF data. Apparently the MOD put the categories in the EXIF data, these have been expanded in the intervening months. There is no current way of finding these matches using a standard process.
  4. Lastly there is the API upload itself, which refuses to upload previously deleted images without confirmation, along with its duplicate and name checks.
    • None of the standard checks would detect these duplicates.
Thanks for highlighting these exceptions, happy to see mine marked as duplicates. The better descriptions and links are probably worth preserving, though the longer EXIFs are debatable as to whether they are an improvement or not. If the source MOD name is quoted anywhere in the uploads, or the specific url is quoted or linked, then the duplicate checks above would work in the future if run again. By the way, I have not kept a log, but I have noticed many duplicates being avoided due to the source name checks and due to the SHA-1 matching some files.
Note, if the earlier files are kept rather than mine, then the {{OGL}} must be amended, the source website requires attribution, and this is a valid condition of the OGL (in this way it varies from PD), I believe the way I have applied the licence to my uploads is in compliance with the terms stated at the MOD source. --Fæ (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
A deletion today caused me to review another file with the same problems, see here. This was resolved by merging information from my version and fixing the source url (which in the file uploaded a couple of months earlier than mine, was neither specific, nor working). Though in the example, the licence still requires the attribution to be repaired. --Fæ (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Watermarks and cropping

Just a reminder, you may want to remove {{Watermark}} after cropping.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  05:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It must be a glitch or an oversight. I'd appreciate any examples where this happened so I can understand where I'm going wrong. For the Airlinesnet check category, there may be a residue we will sweep up (about 25 images that fail the checks so far), but I'm expecting to clear out this category within a couple of days which means that the last step will be handling these exceptions.
Just spotted File:Boeing_737-7Q8,_Oman_Air_AN1117066.jpg, if others are painting out the credit bar rather than cropping it (in this situation cropping is better, as the 12 pixel wide credit bar was added to the image at source), then these will get swept up in checking any 'residue'. --Fæ (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Special:ListFiles/Fæ has some more (the first few (as of 05:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)), at least).  Hazard-SJ  ✈  05:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay I'll check this out a bit later today. It could be related to the site outage, not sure. One of the final checks I'll be doing will be to run through the main check needed category and re-cat any with the watermark template back in the watermarked sub-directory. This should catch any oddities of this sort by default. --Fæ (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hm, quickly looking at File:Boeing 767-3P6-ER, Gulf Traveller AN1053316.jpg (via ListFiles). If there are too many to do by hand, I could isolate these by looking at the file history and checking for my prior crop. Again, I'll wait until the processing of the backlog is complete apart from these oddities, as it might be down to just a handful (this looks likely by a quick browse through the first page at Category:Airliners.net photos (watermarked)). I can't see a systematic error being made. --Fæ (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done This does seem a one-off glitch by the Commons servers going down in an unpredictable way for a brief period. There were around 8 files affected, as far as I could tell, which I have fixed by hand. Marking this done, unless others start to be identified, in which case I'll investigate further. --Fæ (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Palm leafs.jpg

Could you explain this? Special:Log tells that you uploaded a file under this name, but there is no file there (except for a file information page) and Special:Log doesn't mention any deletions or page moves. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I assume the move process did something odd. I have turned it into a redirect. I can't see any prior deleted file, so I have no idea if anything else is going on. In short, no I can't explain it, but I suspect glitch rather than a guiding mind. :-) --Fæ (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion requests

Dear Fæ! Thank you for helping me on this page. As per your advice I have made an undeletion request for 15 files here by providing declaration of consent for all enquiries on the given format. Please see it and reinstate the deleted images on wiki commons. Krantmlverma (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you need to email your statement in to Permissions so that your email address can be verified, this cannot be done on-wiki. Note that undeletions and deletions can only be done by administrators, and I am not trusted or experienced enough to be an administrator. --Fæ (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to help Krantmlverma. I have posted a suggestion on his talk page. --MGA73 (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Commons scope review

Hi Fae, I have added a few thoughts in response to some of your proposals. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning up PRP

Hello, I am writing to you because you have participated in this discussion to inform you that there is a discussion on PRP that is taking place here and your input would be valuable. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

confused

Hi after your comment i don't know what to do with these two files.--Sanandros (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the kind of duplicate (made back in April) that should not occur now I have introduced a check against VIRIN, rather than just the file itself. I have marked the damaged file as the duplicate for deletion.
You may be confused about licensing. The {{OGL}} only applies to UK MoD files, while US DoD files are public domain. Any attribution statement for public domain files is advisory, however an attribution statement for OGL files is a requirement of the licence. --Fæ (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah now i get it. Didn't check that there was something wrong with the licesne.--Sanandros (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Oops, please accept my apology. I think I have confused two different discussion threads myself. The {{PD-USGov-Military}} licence is perfectly good for images uploaded from www.defenseimagery.mil. --Fæ (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

{{Autotranslate|1=|2=Files in Category:Abu Dhabi International Airport|3=plural|base=Idw}} Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, russavia (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings and salutations

Hello -

Looking for advice. Was part of a collaborative team set to begin an upload project - details here and here.

Bot operator retired July 1, project just sitting there. What happens in cases like this? Cheers, Bdcousineau (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, if the operator has some working code, then someone interested in batch uploading would need to take it over and finish testing and running it. I note that Dominic has raised a question on the project page, and considering his successful project with NARA and being a Wikimedian in Residence there, I suggest he is the best starting point for finishing the job.
Potentially I could look at this, especially if the mapping has been sorted out. However considering other projects, I would only be happy to commit to looking at this properly in about a month. I think Dominic's question about duplicates is solvable using the method I have been using for Department of Defence non-identical duplicates, i.e. carefully searching Commons for a unique text ID (or possibly multiple references) to avoid uploading a lower resolution version of something already here, I would agree with his point about negotiating access to TIFFs if this can be sorted out, and would be advised by his significant NARA experience. --Fæ (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick reponse! I'm not sure if there is any access to Smallbot's "working code" beyond what is on the bot request page (my newbie/non-techie status prevents me from knowing if that is enough to work from!) Sadly, NARA does not have a Wikipedian in Residence at this time. Have a nice day! Bdcousineau (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
PS. The metadata for this project was via an API at the |DPLA, a new metadata aggregator in the US with many cultural heritage institutional partners. The NARA metadata was chosen because the image files are clearly in the public domain (rights of some of the other donations to the DPLA are unclear). Essentially, the metadata is free for anyone to use. Bdcousineau (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks

[7] Your personal attacks were shown as completely wrong and rather ignorant. You should strike them immediately. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

No thanks. Please take your case to COM:AN or COM:AN/U if this is not some kind of joke. I will consider any further discussion about this on my talk page a deliberate attempt to disrupt community discussion to achieve a consensus, and considering you have been clearly warned by administrators and bureaucrats for your unacceptable behaviour in that same discussion, this is now likely to result in action per Blocking policy. --Fæ (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Please choose your categories more carfully

I notice that you have been uploading a lot of photos from the Fish and Wildlife Service. That's great, and it's appreciated. However you seem to have been labeling them all as Landscapes, regardless of what the image actually depicts. I am attempting to clean up the page, which was already labelled as overcrowded, but you are currently uploading faster than I can clean. Please take the time to read the Landscape category page. Especially "A landscape... is a combination of different landforms forming a new picture which cannot be categorized as one of the subcategories of Category:Landforms. The picture should cover at least a few square kilometers to be called a landscape.... buildings, mountains and forests do NOT belong into this category." I might also add that pictures of wildlife, plants, people and other miscellany also do not belong in landscapes.

If you could take just a moment to select appropriate categories for you images, that would be appreciated. Some of the more obvious one to use instead of Landscapes are Mountains, Wetlands, Islands, Coasts, Waterfalls, Deserts, Towns and Wildlife. If you could apply these categories where appropriate instead of Landscapes, that would avoid 95% of the mislabelling. Thank you Mark Marathon (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

These were completed back in February this year, I believe. If the categories are being filled with new images, then I doubt this is due to something I am currently doing. If there is a large batch than could be moved to a better category, possibly using a tool like VisualFileChange, do drop me a note and I'll have a look. --Fæ (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

File:The Black Friar Pub, London (4).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:The Black Friar Pub, London (4).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} -mattbuck (Talk) 16:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Málaga Airport Photos

Hello. Really liking the photos at Málaga Airport you have uploaded. If you have any more, could you also please Add this category to the photo? Would be really appreciated:

Category:Aircraft at Málaga Airport

Also if there is no category for an airline registration that you want the I'll make one for you :) Thanks --MKY661 (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please do make the registration categories as needed, this would be a great help.
FYI, just running this little bit of Python to add the category now; it make take a while. Something equivalent could be done with VisualFileChange:
python replace.py -cat:"Airliners.net photos (check needed)" -regex -dotall "(imageloc=Malaga .AGP . LEMG., Spain.*)" "\1\n[[Category:Aircraft at Málaga Airport]]" "(Category:Aircraft at M.laga Airport.*?)\n*\[\[Category:Aircraft at M.laga Airport\]\]" "\1" -ns:6 -query:120 -summary:"Add to [[Category:Aircraft at Málaga Airport]]"
✓ Done more than 750 photos added. --Fæ (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

wrong date

Hallo Fæ. Is there a bot or something to change the date in files like File:La Fleche Chickens.jpg? The 1882 edition does not have domestic animals. The 1887 edition (in the IA) does. --PigeonIP (talk) 07:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think automating this change would be helpful as it would change the date on all images from this source. I can't think of a way of doing a group change that would only apply to domestic animals, unless we were certain that all images were in reliable categories of domestic animals. Considering the change would not affect copyright and only the edition of the source rather than the credit itself, I suggest this is left to be gradually swept up by hand. --Fæ (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I am looking into it: Category:Hill's Album of Biography and Art (1887), but there must be more that are no longer in Category:Images from ReusableArt. I think I have seen some pigeons and rabbits, too. Our common domestic animals (Hill's Album of Biography and Art, 1887) --PigeonIP (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Paris (30403581).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Paris (30403581).jpg|base=Copyvionote}}  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ronhjones, this notice is rather uninformative. As the image was deleted before I had a chance to see this notice, and I have no link to the original Flickr source, I can only guess what the apparent copyright problem might have been. Could you explain what the problem was here? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yarwood/30403581/ - my reason was "This is the iconic pyramid of the Louvre - No FoP in France - compare with File:Louvre at night centered.jpg - only allowed as de minimis". It's not the first image of the new part of the Louvre to be deleted. I only stumbled across it by accident. You could upload to en-wiki and use {{FoP-USonly}} if you want.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm familiar with this as a case study, just had not spotted it in this upload as being central to the photograph. --Fæ (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Aleutian church.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Aleutian church.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Dankarl (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Luminescence.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Luminescence.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Yikrazuul (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Breast cancer awareness stamp.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Breast cancer awareness stamp.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Philafrenzy (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Origami pictures being uploaded

I notice you've uploaded a number of pictures of origami. Unfortunately pictures of origami for commercial use need the designers permission as well as the folders if the design is still in copyright, see [8] page 9 question 11. This would apply to File:Goldfish (Design by Michael LaFosse) (3783264614).jpg or File:Lizard 1 (Design By Robert J. Lang) (4658604962).jpg for instance, I don't know if these had the designers permissions for commercial use. Dmcq (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy to discuss this in a DR and gain a few opinions as some seem marginal cases, such as File:Spirals! (Design by Tomoko Fuse) (3797039734).jpg whilst others certainly appear recent complex designs with little basis on potentially un-copyrightable "historic" origami designs. I would need to go back to the source site and refresh my memory before putting a case in any detail as these were last year, though as I'm going to be away for a few days, I would prefer a DR to run for a couple of weeks rather than just one week, and it might be nice if an origami specialist were to have a view too. --Fæ (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
See this old deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Origami by Archivaldo. Dmcq (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I have raised a DR based on this discussion, refer to Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Koi" (Design by Michael LaFosse) (3600763089).jpg. Thanks for raising this for my attention. --Fæ (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the notice

Thank you very much for notifying me about this. I was not the only one upset with him, If u see his talk page u will be surprised about it. I have uploaded 3 different files for Virgin radio Lebanon under the following: - File 1: under not my own work( I didn't know what license type to use) it was deleted, and I understood why - File 2: my own work: deleted for no reason and last night I uploaded file 3 and still for now it is still available on my Virgin radio Lebanon article.

I understood that I went illegally in the first try but didn't understand why the second was deleted as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandyNovaAW (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure about the facts behind these deletions as I have not read all the discussion. As someone independent but not an admin (so I cannot see deleted files, or undelete them), I could look at this today on your behalf if you wish, and then get back to you later with any explanation I can work out? Let me know if you would like me to do this.
Staying mellow works best on this project and it is worth keeping in mind that any file that gets deleted as a precaution, can fairly easily be undeleted again once the copyright licence or any other problems are clarified. In general the precautionary principle works well, but nobody likes seeing their work deleted. :-) --Fæ (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you!

Hey. thanks for replying. And yes please if u don't mind. thanks in advance :D

Okay, just watching telly with the family (I am one of the masses that get distracted with a laptop at the same time), so I'm happy to take a look, but it may be tomorrow. I'll drop you a note back on your talk page. --Fæ (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

IRC logging

Since you do admit (at least as far as I can tell) that you and some of your admins friends regularly log wikipedia-commons IRC chat [9], I suggest that from now on, whenever you log into that channel (or any of the other Wikimedia Foundation related channels) you let people know that their conversations are being logged, recorded, and collected. You claim that "private logging" is ok - not exactly sure how that differs in practice from "public logging", private becoming public at the point where you, or these "other admins", wish to use the logs to their own benefit in discussions - but I seem to remember a few people getting kicked out of IRC when it was realized they were engaging in "private logging". Oh and also, just as a matter of basic decency; I expect there'd be at least a few people on there who aren't aware of, and wouldn't be pleased to learn of your actions. Just friendly advice. Thanks! Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

IRC is a public channel, so it not limited to my "friends", as demonstrated by the fact that you have been logging conversations there and have been using your logs to make on-wiki threats of action and vague assertions of wrong-doing against Mattbuck, Russavia and others. The matter of public logging was discussed at length at m:IRC/Guidelines/Public logging, this was several years ago so a new RFC on publishing official logs may be useful.
You can see that keeping a log of meetings on IRC is even considered best practice at m:Best practices in hosting an IRC open meeting.
As this is the third time I have spelt out for you that public logging is not the same thing as keeping personal logs of IRC conversations, I think this conversation, hand in hand with your unnecessarily aggressive assertions of malfeasance of one sort or another, is at an end. Please do not write about it again here as you have all the information you need.
--Fæ (talk) 08:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Lol, no, I have never even logged into a WMF related IRC channel. I mean, I think I did once, in like, 2008 or 2009, saw what was going on, decided it was a silly place, and never came back. So no, I am NOT logging conversations ... unlike apparently you are doing. Accusing me of logging... well THAT is a unfounded accusation and a personal attack, in contravention of policy.
And my assertions are anything but vague - there was canvassing and coordination to get somebody blocked (among other things, I believe you also canvassed people to revert an admin's closure of a discussion you didn't like). If you want "evidence" for these assertions the logs can be posted, as you've been told, and as you know.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hello!

I was trying to add sounds of birds on frwiki, and was mentionned xeno-canto. I had begun to upload a few files, but I have just discovered your work and, well... thank you very, very much!!! Litlok (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I just ran a refresh and added 2 new files, hopefully more members of the forum will use the CC-BY-SA licence in the future. :-)
By the way, on en.wp these audio files can be embedded and play within the page, yet looking at the example fr:Sizerin flammé the file needs to launch a new page to be played. Perhaps the way this works is something to improve? I would raise it on a village pump locally, but my French is non-existent I'm afraid. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
This is due to the template I use, which is dedicated to birds sounds and allows to display a link to xeno-canto. In order to play the audio file without leaving the page, you have to write something like [[File:something.ogg|noicon]], for example [[File:Acanthis flammea - Common Redpoll XC115595.ogg|noicon]] gives:
I agree with you that it would be better to not have to leave the page, but I have to discuss with the creator and main contributor to the template... Litlok (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I have corrected the template on frwiki. BTW, does your script update a public log of the new uploaded files? It would allow me to regularly see if something could be added to the articles... Thank you! Litlok (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Not at the moment. I could add something like this, possibly writing an update to the talk page of the xeno-canto category which anyone can then add to their watchlist, but you can get a similar result by checking the most recent related changes. --Fæ (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The relationship between Category:Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and Category:Joint Task Force Guantanamo...

Greetings!

I saw you had added some images to Category:Joint Task Force Guantanamo. I have been grwoing increasingly dissatisfied with categories as an organizing tool. They provide no history -- a bad thing. And people often don't leave an explanation at the top of categories, suggesting what does and doesnt' belong. In this particular case I am at fault for failing to do so with Category:Joint Task Force Guantanamo.

Anyhow the Naval Base is a separate command -- dating back 110 years, commanded by a Naval Captain. It currently has half a dozen tenant commands, of which JTF-GTMO is the largest. Its staff is several times larger than the Naval Base. It think another tenant command is a weather station. I can't remember the others.

I have been figuring that barracks should be put in Category:Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, even if some or most of the barracks were devotes solely to JTF-GTMO personnel -- because that isn't documented.

There is also Category:Guantanamo Bay detainment camp and its subcategories.

Anyhow, if your interested, I welcome discussing how best these images should be organized. Geo Swan (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

My organization is based on how the US military describe their own published photographs as my personal knowledge (being British with no military background) is almost non-existent. I would not see a category re-organization as contentious if it is based on DoD's terminology and remains consistent with the large body of existing categories around Task Forces and common names of naval bases. You can find my 'heuristics' at User talk:Fæ/DoD matching which were developed over several months of manual categorization, and I would be happy to amend this (or remove misleading matches altogether). I am currently using these filters to help allocate reasonable categories not only to my uploads, but to the backlog at Category:Marines.mil images to check, which were uploaded by slick-o-bot but remain poor on categorization. --Fæ (talk) 08:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Mixed up image

I came across File:A Seated Angel (Peri), Mounted on an album leaf LACMA M.85.237.40 (4 of 4).jpg while looking thru the LACMA images (which are wonderful btw). I just thought I'd mention it. INeverCry 08:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, you can add any similar oddities to Category:Images from LACMA uploaded by Fæ (errors) which I have done for this photograph. There have been very few out of the 22,000 uploads that have LACMA source catalogue errors such as this and we should understand that human error is inevitable on such a source website catalogue/database. There was a photograph you deleted of the same display (see http://collections.lacma.org/node/172042 view 7) and I'll probably tag this with a speedy soon after making a note about it. --Fæ (talk) 08:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Russavia#Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Russavia (de-Bureaucrat)

Hi Fae, I have left comments at User talk:Russavia#Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Russavia (de-Bureaucrat) in response to Penyulap. Please, can the two of you find some common ground, and work on that in future. It's up to you two yeah. russavia (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Please do not paint Penyulap's behaviour and constant defamatory accusations as an argument between two people, I find it increasingly hard to understand that point of view in the light of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Fae, I'm not talking about the de-crat issue, but in general the two of you are at constant loggerheads. As I say, the two of you are most alike in terms of your stances, and you both don't see it. It's just a thought is all, and it's up to you two. russavia (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't see it as loggerheads. Penyulap is blatantly misbehaving and has a well established pattern of disrupting noticeboard and consensus building discussion, apparently as they enjoy the attention, at least it's hard to think of another reason. My concern is that since Mattbuck's action to curtain their use of the Admin noticeboards a couple of months ago, I see little improving and the majority of admins appear content to sit back and let the disruption drag on until Penylap digs a hole deep enough that they can't get out of it again. I sort of understand that approach, but in the process we will see many other good faith contributors get upset, disenfranchised from collegiate discussions or potentially suffer the consequences of persistent defamation.
If I get a moment I'll consider a CSS tweak to mute Penyulap, but that does not stop the problem for others.

Available at User:Fæ/code/greasemonkey, per discussion at Commons:VP#CSS to mute threads. --Fæ (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

COM:FPC

Hello, I've nominated a photo that you had uploaded, you can find the nomination page here.  ■ MMXX talk 15:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that is an interesting quality photo from Ulaanbaatar. I recently realized that my uploads were numbering over around 150,000, so I'm sure than some must be FPC standard, there are certainly plenty that I find dramatic, beautiful and surprising. :-) --Fæ (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome :) when I patrol new files for problems, I also look for FP-quality images, specially images of people, IMO we need more FPs of people, that's why your uploads are very interesting for me, I should check them all latter when I have time.  ■ MMXX talk 15:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Category syncing of NARA images

Since all the NARA uploads form the bulk upload project have corresponding jpg and tif versions, it is of no particular advantage to have them both represented in category displays. Thus the separate category for tifs with fully categorized jpgs. I notice you have been syncing categories to move the TIFS into the same categories as the jpgs. I would appreciate it if you would not do this on a large scale without consensus. Thanks, Dankarl (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Or to put it another way: The .tif files have usually already have been categorized on their .jpg equivlaents already in Category:NARA TIF images with categorized JPGs. I think there has been consensus — or at least widespread use — of this convention for a while. (I used to categorize both until several users mentioned this convention. Categorizing both does tend to overwhelm actual category listings.) If there is both a .jpg and a .tif without Category:NARA TIF images with categorized JPGs, and their categories still differ, then of course something is up. --Closeapple (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, this request was raised at Commons:Bots/Work requests#Syncing the categories on NARA files by User:JesseW, and as I see many projects where multiple formats or variants are in all available categories (such as created PNGs or SVGs), I was unaware of any convention to the contrary and took this request and its associated discussion as my mandate. I have halted the synchronization, I will update the Bots/Work page, and can re-start if there is a future documented consensus to do so by a group that would claim to represent the NARA upload project. --Fæ (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I've suggested a small change to the sync-bot that should accomodate the objections. See Commons:Bots/Work requests#Syncing the categories on NARA files. JesseW (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome. Please Mark filenames that you Upload them short and Mark detail in the description --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Perhaps you would like to try uploading some files yourself? --Fæ (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Your recent categorization...

...work is partly against Commons guidelines. Examples:

Please be more careful! Regards, High Contrast (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I have added an exclusion so that "of the Royal Malaysian Air Force" ensures that "Royal Malaysian Air Force" is not matched in Fæ/DoD matching. As for the context problem, I doubt there is any easy way around this apart from looking at each image and ensuring that only "strong" category names are used (i.e. not Category:Helicopters but specific models of helicopter). I believe the categorization is 99% or more "good", compared to the higher human error rate apparent in general categorization, and considering the huge number of files like this that I have categorized using heuristic matches based on doing these by hand and then with significant proportions being manually checked. If you can think of a better way of forming/capturing suitable heuristics please do let me know. The alternative is that large collections such as the majority of the 150,000 in Category:PD US Military remain unusable for years, as has already happened. I would be happy to take this to a community vote to gauge opinion, if you are still uncomfortable with my realistic interpretation of our community guidelines. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Does your "realistic interpretation of our community guidelines" also cover this [10] & [11]? Do you think you are helping anybody by adding Category:Robert Gates to these images? Please rethink your standpoint. --High Contrast (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it seems reasonable to add Robert Gates (US Secretary of Defense) to images of Ministers of Defense from various countries taken at a conference where he was the primary speaker, and they were there to listen and react to what he said. I am going to be busy for a few days, but if you sincerely think that modest challenges to the categorization rationales for a tiny percentage of images (which can be easily fixed when found and this then added to heuristics to avoid the same problem in the future) that my work in categorizing hundreds of thousands of otherwise poorly categorized or uncategorized images is enough to halt the work indefinitely (probably forever as I will just give up and do something else) and result in future batch uploads of more hundreds of thousands of images to completely pointless bucket backlog categories due to a fear of less than 1% of the categories being "weak" resulting in potential complaints about a handful (check my page history, there is no queue of complaints about this here), then I can take this to a community vote in a week or so when I have pulled some numbers together and can clearly justify the benefits of my work and the damage that halting it does to Wikimedia Commons. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Voter upload count table and 1970 registration dates

Hi Fae, is it possible that in your table at the russavia de-crat discussion you entered my name with a lowercase "d" and got a registration date of 1970 for that reason? The tool you linked to works when you enter the ugly but technically necessary form "Darkweasel94". darkweasel94 14:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am only using the exact and uncorrected text as used in !voter signatures. So for yourself I used "darkweasel94". You can hand amend the figures/dates in User:Faebot/SandboxX, so long as you stick to the table and number formats any changes will persist (as Faebot cleverly parses the table data before deciding if anything has changed). This is one of those reports that is fine if 95% accurate and any minor glitches that can be hand-fixed are not really worth the volunteer time of debugging. Hopefully I can re-use the technique for future large votes, which would be a nice way of adding value; if only to demonstrate that any apparent canvassing is not effective at changing an outcome. :-) --Fæ (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I've done that, but noticed something else in the process: Michaeldsuarez has "keep" in the table although he actually voted remove? darkweasel94 15:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea why that is not working, changed by hand. The others seem okay, so this falls under the 95% heuristic. :-)
No, had to fix it due to secondary effects. This was caused by Fastily's non-standard signature, meaning they were not even in the table of results. --Fæ (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
This was a nice table ... it makes me wonder how good you might be with w:principal component analysis. There have been so many partisan votes on the projects, and it would be interesting to process them all, together with edit and upload counts, to wring a few variables from the data that account for the vast majority of the variation.
Certainly I imagine there are some creeps in the NSA who know a thing or two about doing PCA on social network data... Wnt (talk) 05:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!!

  • I just wanted to thank you for you kindness when I was blocked due to my name. I do not have much contact with other editors here and frankly I was a bit surprised what you messaged me. I have send an email to Jameslwoodward letting him know my intentions. I have decided to change my name in order to stop being a distraction here, thanks again.samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

(If this table has errors, please leave a note at User talk:Fæ.)

Your table has errors.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 18:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the table. The bot keeps adding its own update messages and I think that may be the cause. See the sandbox history where it first started and how I fixed it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. A last minute change before I went on vacation caused the problem. I will try running remotely but can't guarantee to keep it going as frequently. If Faebot starts fighting its laptop clone (which may happen if my remote stop does not stick - I did not get around to testing this feature) then it may be worth taking a copy and pointing the !vote discussion to the 'passive' copy. Leave it for the moment and we'll see what happens. Luckily it's just a bit of fun and not critical to the process. :-) --Fæ (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
It isn't hard to for others to fix if you leave the broken one running. I could leave a how-to-fix note on the witch-hunt page. I just edit the broken one to copy the entries. Then I edit the last good historical version and paste them at the bottom.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I noticed the table is not updated with my vote (Remove). I have my doubts in the relevanse of the table and the metrics chosen, but if we are to have it as a support tool for the deciding 'crat, I think an "is 'crat" attribute would be relevant to add, as they are those, who should know best what the "job description" actually means. I may add as well, if the following attributes are ever needed: Fan of Jimmy Wales (N), Conservative (N), Supports sexual explicit content on Commons (Y if consent has been given and editorial judgement is employed to avoid least surprise), Homophobic (N! Have seveal gay friends and family members), From en Wikipedia (N), Wikipediocracy member (N), Previously reported on COM:AN (N), Member of MOP (N, but fulfills requirements). Cheers, --Slaunger (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
If the !vote carries on for a few more days I may take a look. Adding user flags (bureaucrat, admin or non-confirmed-account) should not be too tricky and the routine might be the sort of thing I could reuse at some point. Unless a format is fairly strictly followed, it would never be a reliable 'support tool', but I think some large !votes (perhaps we might have a big RFC soon) could benefit from a running count that gets manually double checked by the closer. In general, I doubt there would be enough demand in the future to need a votebot though. :-) --Fæ (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll add the flags to the table today. I'm travelling, so if this goes wonky (like missing flags) then please ignore this for the moment, or hand correct anything that might cause a misunderstanding and I'll probably fix it more permanently tonight or tomorrow. --Fæ (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the flags. they look OK. I !voted btw and that us missing from the table. --Slaunger (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, spotted that. Probably because the {{cot}} template is just before your sig. It's not the only bug to tease out, but they'll have to be parked until I'm back at the desktop tomorrow. Enjoying the view from a train window and reading a (printed, hardback) book right now. --Fæ (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
No worries, I was in doubt if it was something you maintained manually or extracted from the page. Enjoy your offline book and your vacation! Cheers, --Slaunger (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Your comments at Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Russavia (de-Bureaucrat)

Please stop your attack war with Ottava Rima. I am giving you both an only warning. I don't care who started it, but you both need to stop it right now or else you will be reported. I will tell Ottava Rima the exact same things, but please stop. Happy editing. WorldTraveller101  ?  16:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ottava Rima's ad-hominem comments were about Russavia rather than me, by definition not an "attack war" between two parties. You can find a request on AN/U already in progress here which you are welcome to contribute to if you are concerned.
By the way, you may wish to check my contribution history (see my user page) and compare that to Ottava Rima's history, before responding any of his claims about me at face value. --Fæ (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
My apologies if there was a misunderstanding, albeit you really should just ignore him. He's being provocative to get a reaction. From what I know, he's banned from English Wikipedia and has been blocked several times for attacks and/or harassment. Just don't react Fæ and you'll be set. I suggest you voluntarily withdraw interactions with him and revert all messages from him on your talk page, except for formal notices and warnings that should not be removed. Thanks for your understanding. WorldTraveller101  ?  18:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Sure thanks. :-) By the way, I don't personally read too much into blocks or bans on other projects, whether a person can help with creating content on this project in a collegiate manner should be what counts above anything else. --Fæ (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Russavie de-Bureaucrat

Hi Fæ,

There seems to be an error in:

Sortable table of !voters with edit count and upload count

Please note, I didn't vote "Keep" but "Remove".

Thanks in advance for correction --MisterGugaruz (talk)

I'll take a look a bit later on. It was probably the IP contributions, but something I should fix anyway. --Fæ (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Totted and non-U

Help a non-native speaker here: What does "totted" and "non-U" mean? Thanks, --Slaunger (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL it's very British. You tutt in disapproval (quietly click with your tongue) and non-U is a way of referring to the lower classes. Fæ (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Photo

Hi, can you help me in this please? I can't fix it

thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaticiferoLattice (talk • contribs)

The file seems corrupted in some way, it displays with many aberrations on my laptop. The file was probably being truncated too early either during upload or is already broken on your local drive. I suggest (1) try re-uploading the file (use the "Upload a new version of this file" link on the image page) (2) if this makes no difference, try processing the photograph in an editing tool like Gimp or Photoshop, re-compressing the jpeg by saving with a different file size would ensure it was re-written, and then upload again. --Fæ (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

OK,thank you very much --LaticiferoLattice (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

got your messag from Alvarosevilladesign

saw your photograph of the month, really nice.....great work


i am uploading more photograps this week on the historic center of quito

you said there are some issues, i was wondering if you can go into detail

i am also interested in trying to get more traction within wikipedia and maybe nominate some of these, or some that i took from the galapagos on the picture of the day and could use some help

thanks in advance

cheers

Alvarosevilladesign

Thanks for getting back to me. I will follow up on your talk page a little later on today. :-) --Fæ (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Report

Wow, how could you get this report? — TintoMeches, 16:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Using the API. You can find the size of any file with a call like this, and pull out the imageinfo tag from the XML. So all you then have to do is make this part of a loop through a list of the files in a category (and in this case its child categories), stick the results in an array and generate the statistics; I did this using a bit of Python and pywikipediabot modules, though my code is a bit hackish and not efficient. Sounds easy, but it has taken about a year of bits and bobs of volunteer time to get proficient with it all, especially considering the not terribly well written documentation for all this stuff. :-) --Fæ (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok... I have to say even reading the whole documentation it's not as easy as it seems. Clin Anyway, thanks for answering, it will take a lifetime to learn everything but I'll manage it! Have a good day, see you! — TintoMeches, 16:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
You can actually use generators to do batches of 500, but a Toolserver SQL query by far the easiest (Largest images on Commons). Dispenser (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. The report was a quick hack, so tweaking it to use the generator query is a good improvement, and would make it possible to run as a repeatable bot if the need becomes apparent. The SQL queries thing has been on my list for a long time (CJ Date's book was my bible in the 1980s), I'll probably get to it this year. :-)
Report tweaked (diff), so more complex stuff is possible for me to try out. --Fæ (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Geograph in county

Hey,

As you have mostly done my primary region of interest, this task has mostly slipped from my mind. Two questions:

  1. What areas have you managed to do so far - I can do some bot runs to fix anomalies like I did in SE Wales.
    South West, Wales and the South East are done. Doing 'middle England' (inc. Oxford and Yorkshire, probably another month or 6 weeks with Faebot being fully occupied on that, it's 2/7ths done). The project page is fairly up to date with progress. Scotland was patchy, SW Scotland and the far North being an early experiment, and I have yet to investigate Ireland.
  2. Could you prioritise the northeast of Scotland (between Inverness and Aberdeen)? This will assist in resolving some category issues that have arisen in this region. Note Council Areas (Unitary Authorities in MapIt) are the desired unit in Scotland.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
    Yes. I'm still on holiday today, but I could take a look tomorrow - or if something pops up, then later this week. I would put any data about it in the Scotland area of User:Faebot/Geograph. --Fæ (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for update. Dumfries and Galloway may need a quick re-run too, to use the more mature code and to fix a few cases where the info was stripped.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Hm, in that case, in the same way as I am letting Faebot loose on a massive swathe of England, and considering my success with Wales, I might just do Scotland in a big bite rather than separate regions. I've been diverted a little, I may get time to look again today. It'll take a day or two to set up anyway - I have to download a fresh snapshot of Commons metadata (the last one is a couple of months ago) and I should do a little bit of passive soak testing just in case. I'm vaguely aware of Scotland related hoo-ha elsewhere, but I'll avoid getting involved as I'm so darn ignorant about it; I'll just focus on the 'official' data and naming conventions. :-) --Fæ (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Faebot's localisation script has proven pretty robust now its been able to use quality data, I haven't looked but I'd be shocked if there are many errors in Yorkshire for instance.
Two things for the future:
  1. Ireland. Need to dig and find high quality info there (the counties are probably right level?), then how to use it.
  2. Finer localisation. The data is there for Wales and most of England, in terms of MapIt data again. The complication is mapping to Commons catgories.
Should be possible to do a proof-of-concept test for the second. Take a random sample from Category:Geograph images in Devon and see what parish gets reported, and dump output somewhere. Then compare to actual categorisation (which is complete and verified for Devon)..--Nilfanion (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It took me a day to sort out a download of the latest Commons dump (uncompressed it's 24GB and I realized I couldn't transfer the compressed file by USB...) and I am generating a complete XML list of Geograph images in Scotland. Another couple of days and I will probably be running a test sample and can then slowly increase the number of council areas being identified and added as categories. The list is spooling out now, it just told me that File:Lairig Leacach Bothy.jpg is in my rough big rectangle for the whole of Scotland. :-) --Fæ (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Update: Faebot is still spooling out the list of relevant files from the local Commons dump. I don't recall Wales taking this long, so unless something weird happened with my lat/lon rectangle, I'm hoping there will be quite a large database to work through. I never did work out a way of having progress reported, so this is one of those odd blackbox processes that is over when it's over. :-) --Fæ (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised at Scotland taking significantly longer than Wales. Scotland has a much bigger area, and a higher population. The bounding box will also include a big chunk of England (down to Newcastle). It might be worth identifying Northumberland at the same time actually. Those factors should translate to many more Geograph images in that area...--Nilfanion (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Faebot has finished writing the list, with 541,081 titles (the text file is 32MB). I'll do a little passive testing over the next couple of days and I'll ponder if a more substantial consensus on the hidden Geograph county names is needed, and whether the county categorization for files with no county yet attached is okay to go ahead with. It can always stay on pause for a few weeks to let the current RFC complete first. --Fæ (talk) 08:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Scottish counties not "former" and should stay as a category

  • The maps of the boundaries of the Counties or Shires of Scotland are recorded in the 2009 Acts of the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Statutory Instruments 2009 No. 171.

Registers and records. The Fees in the Registers of Scotland Amendment Order 2009. Made 29th April 2009. Coming into force 31st May 2009. Registers of Scotland. Data set of registration county boundaries. 150 pounds. http://www.lawalphabet.com/document_ssi-2009-171 Scotire (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

    • You can see from the Act of the Scottish Parliament 2009 no. 171 that the counties are not "former" as expressed in the 2nd paragraph of the discussion. Many tens of thousands of photos were placed into counties and were sorted into places in those counties. As there are only about 32 Scottish counties they can be, without any trouble, and as has been done, placed as a sub-category of the Council category, although the county is actually higher than the council that runs it. Someone has been using a bot to delete the towns from the counties categories and placing them in the council categories before the discussion had been running for the required 2 weeks. Scotire (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi Scotire. I have seen this discussion from a distance, and I'll not be entering into it myself as I feel I do not understand the history well enough. I have observed many heated debates about boundaries. My work with Faebot using UK OS open data will hopefully remain tangential as this was one of the reasons that I stick to using special Geograph hidden categories with the County name that Ordnance Survey uses in their database. I have no issue with the visible categories being supplementary to this and based on whatever current consensus is agreed. Either way, the Geograph category is a useful and accurate check of location data. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Heroin Drugs Seized by the Counter Narcotics Police of Afghanistan MOD 45152423.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Heroin Drugs Seized by the Counter Narcotics Police of Afghanistan MOD 45152423.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Richard Harvey (talk) 09:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Fae! Thanks for pointing out that I forgot to notify Daniel the duke about the block. I totally forgot to do so and I didn't see your note in the thread. There was a lot of noise in the discussion, I just didn't see it. Michaeldsuarez notified him after unsuccessfully trying to reach me. Maybe next time you could drop me a line on my talk page? Much appreciated! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 16:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Royal Air Force pics on Twitter

You may be interested in/ able to help with Commons:Village pump#Royal Air Force pics on Twitter. Cheers, Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Category problem

Hi, there appears to be a problem with the BOT in this edit it appears to have added an incorrect category with a double "the" in it thus making it red-linked. There are over 170 in this incorrect category. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this, a silly double-trap, now fixed. --Fæ (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting. Keith D (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate category

Just spotted a duplicate category for Geograph images Category:Photographs by Peter Church and Category:Images by Peter Church. Probably best to stick with the usual "Images by" though the "Photographs by" is older. Keith D (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the files.I will keep this in mind if I run another geograph user Categorization. --Fæ (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Sage derby cheese.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Sage derby cheese.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Broc (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

File:The Royal Norwegian Navy mine countermeasures ship HNOMS Hinnoey (M343) participates in a small boat attack scenario June 13, 2013, in the Baltic Sea during Baltic Operations (BALTOPS) 2013 130613-N-ZZ999-103.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:The Royal Norwegian Navy mine countermeasures ship HNOMS Hinnoey (M343) participates in a small boat attack scenario June 13, 2013, in the Baltic Sea during Baltic Operations (BALTOPS) 2013 130613-N-ZZ999-103.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} High Contrast (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Category addition to Battle of Egypt art

Thank you for this upload. It is a breathtakingly lovely work of art, and the context makes it even more exceptional than it was already. I took the liberty of adding a category, History of telephony.

I was categorizing telecommunications-related image uploads, when I happened upon it. That is what led me to the Sage Derby cheese upload, thus my comment and response to the RfD (just in case you were curious ;o)

Again, thank you for adding the Battle of Egypt image to the Commons. You have a very fine eye in general, from what I noticed. --FeralOink (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

File:The British Army in Northern Italy, 1943 TR1404.jpg

Hi Fae. Thank you very much for all the interesting pictures from WW 2 that you upload. Now, a little mistake. This picture is impossible that it's in Northern Italy. The environment is typical of southern Italy, as well as the vegetation (prickly pears, olive trees) that do not grow in northern Italy. The photo could have been taken in Sicily or Calabria or Puglia. Can you correct this error? Thank you very much. Greetings --DenghiùComm (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

You are right, the IWM catalogue seems incorrect and I have added a note on the description. If you see a pattern of several photos, I suggest making a backlog "error" category for IWM photos so that these may be investigated at some future time by someone with access to the master archives at the IWM or that knows about the service history of the photographer. Unfortunately, in this particular instance I have no access to any information of better quality than the IWM archive that can provide information about this photo and photographer. --Fæ (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Uploads_by_MaybeMaybeMaybe_(duplicates)

{{autotranslate|1=Category:Uploads_by_MaybeMaybeMaybe_(duplicates)|2=Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/09/Category:Uploads_by_MaybeMaybeMaybe_(duplicates)|base=Cdw}} CennoxX (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Buzzy bee toy.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Buzzy bee toy.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Avenue (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

File:The Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF) Guided Missile Destroyer JS Haruna (DDH 141) (foreground), sails in formation with the U.S. Navy Ticonderoga Class Guided Missile Cruiser (Aegis) USS Lake 070318-N-HX866-262.jpg

File:The Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF) Guided Missile Destroyer JS Haruna (DDH 141) (foreground), sails in formation with the U.S. Navy Ticonderoga Class Guided Missile Cruiser (Aegis) USS Lake 070318-N-HX866-262.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Gbawden (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

File:From front, JS Haruna (DDH 141), the guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Champlain (CG 57) and guided-missile destroyer USS Russell (DDG 59) steam in formation during a photo exercise with the Ronald Reagan Strike 070318-N-HX866-262.jp

File:From front, JS Haruna (DDH 141), the guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Champlain (CG 57) and guided-missile destroyer USS Russell (DDG 59) steam in formation during a photo exercise with the Ronald Reagan Strike 070318-N-HX866-262.jp has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Gbawden (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Onam greetings!

OnaSadya

Have a nice Onam tomorrow! JKadavoor Jee 17:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Patisserie in Dalyan, Turkey; where there was a spot of free wifi.

Thanks. In a café a long way from my normal internet connection. Back to real life in just a few days. :-) --Fæ (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

{{Autotranslate|1=|2=Files in Category:Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport|3=plural|base=Idw}} Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, russavia (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Aircrafts

Hi. You uploaded the last hours some 1000s images of planes, helicopters and so on - most of them uncategorized. I hope, you will do it. Without a propper categorizon the images only the half worth. Marcus Cyron (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, the majority of uploads to Category:Airliners.net photos (check needed) should already have the particular aircraft model as the lowest level appropriate category already added, categories like Category:Aero Boero AB-115. I am working on these in cooperation with Russavia as a project spanning several months, and the long term plan is for good categorization as there will be something like 100,000 images to be uploaded (more than 30,000 have been done so far). Note the OTRS releases against each photographer means that licensing has been carefully checked through in advance. I don't have any numbers to hand on categorization, I'll think about running a report so we have some useful batch upload statistics to refer to rather than our best guesses. :-) --Fæ (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Analysis on the backlog category gives some good news. The stats are as follows:
Visible categories Images
0 7855
1 15973
2 5447
3 1127
4 477
5 88
This means that rather than most of those in the check needed backlog, actually around 75% have one or more categories with 25% having 2 or more visible categories. When you keep in mind that when finished being checked, images come out of this category, that seems a good level.
For a little more context, note that I upload these photos with a category for the aircraft type added if it exists. Enthusiasts with more knowledge about aircraft, like Russavia, are working on creating aircraft categories and images from this batch provide a quick and high quality way to populate those categories. Russavia has done some great work contacting the photographers to get permission to host their photos on Commons and the topic of transport is one that Commons needs to cover in great deal due to the high level of public interest and need for media in this area. --Fæ (talk) 07:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

File:A serviceman accesses social media channels using a smart phone, outside MOD Main Building in London MOD 45156046.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:A serviceman accesses social media channels using a smart phone, outside MOD Main Building in London MOD 45156046.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Snowshoe group, Mount Royal, Montreal, QC, about 1901.jpg

This image was never uploaded so you can upload it or file a speedy delete if you wish. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, looks like a system problem with thumbnails. I have commented on the DR.
Note, I'm not an admin so can't delete files myself, though I have an RFA running this week. --Fæ (talk) 07:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

OTRS concerns

Asking your pardon but i am unable to contact you as i do not know your email. And as far as yor concern over the group photogrpah of 30th commonwealth parliamentary association conference of october 1984[12]. I am glad to tell you that there were a number of relatives of members of delegations of the conference from India including me Dr. Blaram Jakhar' s son Atal Bihari Vajpayee's nephew who had their cameras with them and captured the picture, this was allowed in conference protocol, be assured. Thank you have nice day.--Sks1950 (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It's okay any email on a ticket where we are corresponding automatically goes to a queue for my attention. :-) There's no need to flag it for me here. --Fæ (talk) 10:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems you are an indian from photo on your user page, proud to see people like you working so high and far there. Well Wishes.--Sks1950 (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL, I have Indian connections but am a Londoner myself. Not too high and mighty here, though I'm one of the most active contributors, I'm not an admin. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

concerns about judgement.

You asked: "Could you provide an example of a decision I made on Commons in the last year that you feel illustrates a judgement problem that makes me unsuitable for the admin tools."

I do have serious concerns about your judgement, just from looking at some of the 5000 + pictures you uploaded from norden.org. (Btw: I am Scandinavian, and more familiar with Swedish, Danish, Norwegian (Bokmål) and Norwegian (Nynorsk), than I am with English.) To try to sum up:

A Hoarding: Why do you upload so many virtually similar pictures? Say, what is the difference between [13] and [14] ? Or [15] and [16]? Etc,etc. People end up wasting a lot of time wading through virtually equal pictures.


B Lack of knowledge: Your complete lact of knowledge/research/interest in subjects you are uploading to. Eg. "Åhörare" means "Audience" or "listener" in Swedish, as a simple translate.google would have shown you. Typically here [17] you give as

Description English: Åhörare vis BSPC:s möte i Visby 2008-09-01

When did the the word Åhörare become English? (If you had been a native Swede, I might have forgiven you for not knowing. But for a native English speaker this is pure sloppiness) The description in English should have been something like: "The audience at the BSPC meeting in Visby 2008-09-01". The original should have been "Åhörare vid", not "Åhörare vis". And since you do not understand what you are uploading, you pass on the mistake.

(Partly ) same mistake made here: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] etc.

Or when you name a file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2011,_Silje_Bergum_Kinsten.jpg, a name I have never heard of. It is simply the photographer. But if you had looked at the picture, you can clearly see the books of mr Erik Fosnes Hansen …why not add Category:Erik_Fosnes_Hansen? Or Category:Erlend Loe for [23]? That might have had some interest, ..and would not have taken that much more work.

I am just gobsmacked at the thought of the work involved cleaning up after your uploads from norden.org (And I can promise: It won´t be me doing it.) Sorry for being so blunt, but there you are.


C Relevance: Uploading a lot of pictures that I cannot in my wildest imagination see can ever have any relevance to an encyclopedia. The above Åhörare is an example. Now, I can understand why they were uploaded to nordic.org: These meetings of Nordic politicians, with nothing really to decide, are notoriously boring non-events. Which has been duly noted in many a news article. Again, duly accompanied by pictures of a bored audience. Duly given on norden.org….

However, why should these pictures have an interest for wikipedia? Except to clutter up commons?

Sorry, but for me uploading all these images shows a lot of automatic "ant"-like type of work; with a complete lack of any judgement. (& creating a lot of work for others). So when you show no "sensible" judgement (IMO), even as a "common user" on commons, how do you, seriously, expect me to trust you with admin tools? Cheers, TheRealHuldra (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi the Norden uploads were a special request that I picked up, the batch upload providing a wealth of valuable high quality photos of politicians and there were discussions with other volunteers relating to the formatting points you raise and how best to handle them at the time, so I should probably check my talk page archive as I can point to some of these joint decisions. I have something on right now so a reply may take until tomorrow. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I will await your answer. I agree that there are many high quality photos of politicians (though often too many similar). Please address especially the "Hoarding"-issue; I cannot see any amount of involvement from others mitigating this. Cheers, TheRealHuldra (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


I may have misunderstood some of your questions, so apologies in advance, but I'm happy to expand or re-address a question if that's the case. My stab at answering in the sections below.

A: Similar photos

You described this as hoarding, which I'm not sure is the right word here. There is an issue about how we make an assessment of a batch upload to decide if everything should be preserved on Commons or whether filtering of similar photos would be a good thing. I did filter the batch upload as each "image folder" on the Norden site was assessed and an appropriate category used or created as a starting point for each batch. In particular I ensured that photos without a fully free licence were not uploaded, and there were some photos relating to a competition where though Norden has released these on a free licence, the original competition site had these on a non-commercial licence. In that case I contacted Norden but with no reply we skipped these images. You can find some community discussion on how best to categorize on User_talk:Fæ/2013#Estonia_can_not_into_Nordic.2C_but_Nordic_can_into_Commons.

I agree that Norden hosts some quite similar images, though a selection of good quality but fairly similar images can often have value, giving options for re-users. In the example of the two river photos showing the same rocks, the photos differ by the level of motion blur in the water, this means that one would be better if used as a background image and the other, having clearly defined waves, would be better used as an individual illustration. In the case of the flag, perhaps one could be deleted, but again variations in how the flag is moving may make one more aesthetically pleasing for a reuser. If I were uploading dozens of very similar images (such as the flag), I would agree that a deletion request would be in order to let the community trim down the selection.

As a pragmatic solution if users are having difficulty wading through photos, then we probably should encourage more detailed sub-categories. --Fæ (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

B: Lack of knowledge

Yes, sure, I'm ignorant on most topics, I recall saying this in a radio interview which was confusing writing an encyclopedia with knowing lots of facts. I was helping out with a request for a batch upload (some months ago now) and I was in the hand of fellow contributors who are skilled in other languages to help out. Unfortunately after researching the metadata on the Norden site, there was no systematic way to identify language at source. It was, however the case that the keywords all images were categorized under were in English and so I defaulted to applying the en template to the descriptions which include these English keywords. A large number were worked on soon after uploads by other volunteers who swapped the Commons language tags as suitable.

With regard to better categorization, I can suggest using VisualFileChange. This is an easy way of filtering the text with matching names of authors or similar. I do have a neat routine for renaming batches of files, swapping regex matches in the filename for a desired outcome. If there are larger batches of renames needed where there is a pattern I would be happy to sort these out, though filenames can be a bit restrictive in terms of the allowable characters, hence the tendency to use a basic English set. --Fæ (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

C: Relevance

The scope of Commons is to preserve and provide access to as wide a range and diversity of educational images as possible. This is not the same thing as providing content for Wikipedia articles. For example, we might only ever need to have 10 images of UK Prime Minister David Cameron to satisfy Wikipedias in all languages, though we actually have a few hundred on Commons as the scope is for all types of educational re-use for the public, not in any way limited to reuse on Wikimedia sister projects. --Fæ (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

{{Autotranslate|1=|2=Files in Category:Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport|3=plural|base=Idw}} Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, russavia (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Aircrafts

Hi. You uploaded the last hours some 1000s images of planes, helicopters and so on - most of them uncategorized. I hope, you will do it. Without a propper categorizon the images only the half worth. Marcus Cyron (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, the majority of uploads to Category:Airliners.net photos (check needed) should already have the particular aircraft model as the lowest level appropriate category already added, categories like Category:Aero Boero AB-115. I am working on these in cooperation with Russavia as a project spanning several months, and the long term plan is for good categorization as there will be something like 100,000 images to be uploaded (more than 30,000 have been done so far). Note the OTRS releases against each photographer means that licensing has been carefully checked through in advance. I don't have any numbers to hand on categorization, I'll think about running a report so we have some useful batch upload statistics to refer to rather than our best guesses. :-) --Fæ (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Analysis on the backlog category gives some good news. The stats are as follows:
Visible categories Images
0 7855
1 15973
2 5447
3 1127
4 477
5 88
This means that rather than most of those in the check needed backlog, actually around 75% have one or more categories with 25% having 2 or more visible categories. When you keep in mind that when finished being checked, images come out of this category, that seems a good level.
For a little more context, note that I upload these photos with a category for the aircraft type added if it exists. Enthusiasts with more knowledge about aircraft, like Russavia, are working on creating aircraft categories and images from this batch provide a quick and high quality way to populate those categories. Russavia has done some great work contacting the photographers to get permission to host their photos on Commons and the topic of transport is one that Commons needs to cover in great deal due to the high level of public interest and need for media in this area. --Fæ (talk) 07:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

File:A serviceman accesses social media channels using a smart phone, outside MOD Main Building in London MOD 45156046.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:A serviceman accesses social media channels using a smart phone, outside MOD Main Building in London MOD 45156046.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Snowshoe group, Mount Royal, Montreal, QC, about 1901.jpg

This image was never uploaded so you can upload it or file a speedy delete if you wish. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, looks like a system problem with thumbnails. I have commented on the DR.
Note, I'm not an admin so can't delete files myself, though I have an RFA running this week. --Fæ (talk) 07:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

OTRS concerns

Asking your pardon but i am unable to contact you as i do not know your email. And as far as yor concern over the group photogrpah of 30th commonwealth parliamentary association conference of october 1984[24]. I am glad to tell you that there were a number of relatives of members of delegations of the conference from India including me Dr. Blaram Jakhar' s son Atal Bihari Vajpayee's nephew who had their cameras with them and captured the picture, this was allowed in conference protocol, be assured. Thank you have nice day.--Sks1950 (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It's okay any email on a ticket where we are corresponding automatically goes to a queue for my attention. :-) There's no need to flag it for me here. --Fæ (talk) 10:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems you are an indian from photo on your user page, proud to see people like you working so high and far there. Well Wishes.--Sks1950 (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL, I have Indian connections but am a Londoner myself. Not too high and mighty here, though I'm one of the most active contributors, I'm not an admin. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

concerns about judgement.

You asked: "Could you provide an example of a decision I made on Commons in the last year that you feel illustrates a judgement problem that makes me unsuitable for the admin tools."

I do have serious concerns about your judgement, just from looking at some of the 5000 + pictures you uploaded from norden.org. (Btw: I am Scandinavian, and more familiar with Swedish, Danish, Norwegian (Bokmål) and Norwegian (Nynorsk), than I am with English.) To try to sum up:

A Hoarding: Why do you upload so many virtually similar pictures? Say, what is the difference between [25] and [26] ? Or [27] and [28]? Etc,etc. People end up wasting a lot of time wading through virtually equal pictures.


B Lack of knowledge: Your complete lact of knowledge/research/interest in subjects you are uploading to. Eg. "Åhörare" means "Audience" or "listener" in Swedish, as a simple translate.google would have shown you. Typically here [29] you give as

Description English: Åhörare vis BSPC:s möte i Visby 2008-09-01

When did the the word Åhörare become English? (If you had been a native Swede, I might have forgiven you for not knowing. But for a native English speaker this is pure sloppiness) The description in English should have been something like: "The audience at the BSPC meeting in Visby 2008-09-01". The original should have been "Åhörare vid", not "Åhörare vis". And since you do not understand what you are uploading, you pass on the mistake.

(Partly ) same mistake made here: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34] etc.

Or when you name a file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2011,_Silje_Bergum_Kinsten.jpg, a name I have never heard of. It is simply the photographer. But if you had looked at the picture, you can clearly see the books of mr Erik Fosnes Hansen …why not add Category:Erik_Fosnes_Hansen? Or Category:Erlend Loe for [35]? That might have had some interest, ..and would not have taken that much more work.

I am just gobsmacked at the thought of the work involved cleaning up after your uploads from norden.org (And I can promise: It won´t be me doing it.) Sorry for being so blunt, but there you are.


C Relevance: Uploading a lot of pictures that I cannot in my wildest imagination see can ever have any relevance to an encyclopedia. The above Åhörare is an example. Now, I can understand why they were uploaded to nordic.org: These meetings of Nordic politicians, with nothing really to decide, are notoriously boring non-events. Which has been duly noted in many a news article. Again, duly accompanied by pictures of a bored audience. Duly given on norden.org….

However, why should these pictures have an interest for wikipedia? Except to clutter up commons?

Sorry, but for me uploading all these images shows a lot of automatic "ant"-like type of work; with a complete lack of any judgement. (& creating a lot of work for others). So when you show no "sensible" judgement (IMO), even as a "common user" on commons, how do you, seriously, expect me to trust you with admin tools? Cheers, TheRealHuldra (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi the Norden uploads were a special request that I picked up, the batch upload providing a wealth of valuable high quality photos of politicians and there were discussions with other volunteers relating to the formatting points you raise and how best to handle them at the time, so I should probably check my talk page archive as I can point to some of these joint decisions. I have something on right now so a reply may take until tomorrow. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I will await your answer. I agree that there are many high quality photos of politicians (though often too many similar). Please address especially the "Hoarding"-issue; I cannot see any amount of involvement from others mitigating this. Cheers, TheRealHuldra (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


I may have misunderstood some of your questions, so apologies in advance, but I'm happy to expand or re-address a question if that's the case. My stab at answering in the sections below.

A: Similar photos

You described this as hoarding, which I'm not sure is the right word here. There is an issue about how we make an assessment of a batch upload to decide if everything should be preserved on Commons or whether filtering of similar photos would be a good thing. I did filter the batch upload as each "image folder" on the Norden site was assessed and an appropriate category used or created as a starting point for each batch. In particular I ensured that photos without a fully free licence were not uploaded, and there were some photos relating to a competition where though Norden has released these on a free licence, the original competition site had these on a non-commercial licence. In that case I contacted Norden but with no reply we skipped these images. You can find some community discussion on how best to categorize on User_talk:Fæ/2013#Estonia_can_not_into_Nordic.2C_but_Nordic_can_into_Commons.

I agree that Norden hosts some quite similar images, though a selection of good quality but fairly similar images can often have value, giving options for re-users. In the example of the two river photos showing the same rocks, the photos differ by the level of motion blur in the water, this means that one would be better if used as a background image and the other, having clearly defined waves, would be better used as an individual illustration. In the case of the flag, perhaps one could be deleted, but again variations in how the flag is moving may make one more aesthetically pleasing for a reuser. If I were uploading dozens of very similar images (such as the flag), I would agree that a deletion request would be in order to let the community trim down the selection.

As a pragmatic solution if users are having difficulty wading through photos, then we probably should encourage more detailed sub-categories. --Fæ (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

B: Lack of knowledge

Yes, sure, I'm ignorant on most topics, I recall saying this in a radio interview which was confusing writing an encyclopedia with knowing lots of facts. I was helping out with a request for a batch upload (some months ago now) and I was in the hand of fellow contributors who are skilled in other languages to help out. Unfortunately after researching the metadata on the Norden site, there was no systematic way to identify language at source. It was, however the case that the keywords all images were categorized under were in English and so I defaulted to applying the en template to the descriptions which include these English keywords. A large number were worked on soon after uploads by other volunteers who swapped the Commons language tags as suitable.

With regard to better categorization, I can suggest using VisualFileChange. This is an easy way of filtering the text with matching names of authors or similar. I do have a neat routine for renaming batches of files, swapping regex matches in the filename for a desired outcome. If there are larger batches of renames needed where there is a pattern I would be happy to sort these out, though filenames can be a bit restrictive in terms of the allowable characters, hence the tendency to use a basic English set. --Fæ (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

C: Relevance

The scope of Commons is to preserve and provide access to as wide a range and diversity of educational images as possible. This is not the same thing as providing content for Wikipedia articles. For example, we might only ever need to have 10 images of UK Prime Minister David Cameron to satisfy Wikipedias in all languages, though we actually have a few hundred on Commons as the scope is for all types of educational re-use for the public, not in any way limited to reuse on Wikimedia sister projects. --Fæ (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Wiki gold medal.svg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Wiki gold medal.svg|2=File:Wiki bronze medal.png|3=|base=Idw}} Taivo (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Lack of interest

In many ways this complaint is related to TheRealHuldra's observations above, but I find you have a lack of interest in the images you upload, your only objective seems to be upload as many images as possible without any real love or care for the images themselves. Take File:Yakovlev Yak-50 AN0323271.jpg and File:Yakovlev Yak-50 AN0320189.jpg, both have been languishing since July basically uncategorised, not in any relevant category, but not showing up as uncategorised because of hidden categories you've added sucha as Category:Images uploaded by Fæ. If you must upload images which you do not want to spend the time categorising then leave out the hidden categories o a bot can pick up that the files are uncategorised.--KTo288 (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, this is part of a large batch upload project with several people involved. I have the skills for running the batch uploads and handling the process for cropping them. It is the other other members of our project that have the avionics expertise for additional categorization and the contacts in the Airline forum websites to ensure we have good OTRS releases for their photostreams. Considering the care I take with testing, ensuring duplicate checks are good, the special encoding for OTRS credit templates and the innovative allocation of aircraft category (which exists for the majority of photos and are in the process of being created by others), I do not believe you are being fair by vaguely accusing me of a lack of love or care for this work. There is also a time-limit on our work as if the GFDL becomes unusable on Commons, then the licences would all have to be re-negotiated, probably resulting in them never being uploaded, unless we complete these uploads now.
Russavia is busy with important real life events at the moment, however I will suggest that we create a project page together to explain what is going on, who is interested in helping, and find a better way of showing the burn-down of progress for those concerned that categorization is taking a long time.
Again, I take care and have pride in my batch upload work. I take care to gain a consensus and have immediately halted, tested and retested if anyone finds a problem at any time. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Action 1
After looking again at a DR raised by High Contrast, I have decided to work on a community RFC so that we clarify the guidelines for batch uploaders and our shared interpretation of whether the "preserve" aspect of the aims of this project means that uploading with some categorization or the use of project backlog categories is adequate in order to preserve human knowledge given the risk that these assets often do become inaccessible to the public over time, as a priority over other considerations. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Commons:Requests for comment/Batch categorization requirements now created, please do explain your concerns there so that the wider community can discuss the issues. --Fæ (talk) 10:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Action 2
I have set up Commons:Batch uploading/Airliners so that project members can coordinate and others have a place to express opinions on the project and make suggestions for improvement. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Bot error?

Hi Fae. I don't understand what happened with all these edits: [36], [37], [38]. There are a lot more. It seems that these are not NARA images, but somehow the image description pages were overwritten with the descriptions from other NARA images. I'm not sure how widespread this is, but I am coming across a lot by scanning the Whatlinkshere for NARA templates for image titles without "NARA" in them. Dominic (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a careful look tomorrow and see what is behind it and how many are affected. If it's a Faebot glitch then it should be consistent and reversible or tweakable. Thanks for highlighting them. Catching up with some gruesome Whitechapel murders right now. --Fæ (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
It might take a little longer, I have a little sniffer script that can look for suspect changes like this, but it looks a bit slow, taking around 2s per image (about 3 days run time to give me a list of candidates). I'll ponder how to make this faster, but if it works, it seems simpler to just let it do its thing. I am going away for a couple of days (visiting an exhibition in Norfolk) so an analysis might push out into next week as I don't think I can do this one on the move.
Update - seems to be slower than I estimated, about 10 minutes per 100 files, this may be down to my poor wifi or lost connections causing re-requests. The list of candidates for further action should build up at User:Fæ/sandbox. Please leave them for the moment as I should be able to automate a batch rollback if that looks wise.
I tested my sniffer on one of your examples, and it did highlight it, so it's probably working okay. So far 2,500/120,000 images sampled and no oddities identified yet, so we can probably be reassured that it will be a small number of problem files.
... After a re-write it looks like fewer than one in a thousand files might be worth checking, so this is probably something I can do 'by hand' next week when I am no longer travelling. --Fæ (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The report picked up your 3 examples, so appears to be good. This problem affected fewer than 0.05% of files, so seems something I can fix with some manual roll backs rather than anything more intricate. :-) Fæ (talk) 05:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

NARA oddities list

The following list of 42 images are where the initial version does not appear to mention "National Archives" or "NARA", but the most recent changes have applied the NARA uploads template. The number in square brackets is the sequential position of the file in Category:Media contributed by the National Archives and Records Administration (1,525,196 files), included to give a sense of the proportion of oddities being found.

  1. [6737] File:"Top Women" at U.S. Steel's Gary, Indiana, Works, 1940-1945.jpg  Checked 
  2. [14043] File:Anvil rock, by Martin, Alexander, d. 1929.jpg  Restored 
  3. [16166] File:Baldy Peak, Cerro Blanco Mountains, Colorado, 14,234 feet above sea-level. Limit in altitude of vegetation about 11,000 feet, by O’Sullivan, Timothy H., 1840-1882 2.png  Restored 
  4. [16257] File:Banking ground, Squaw Creek, Thomas Foster's, by Jenney, J. A. (James A.).png  Restored 
  5. [17654] File:Black Hawk, Colorado, by Reed & McKenney.png  Restored 
  6. [20460] File:Camp at White Bear Den, D.T, from Robert N. Dennis collection of stereoscopic views.jpg  Restored 
  7. [21464] File:Cascade near Terrapin Tower, by Soule, John P., 1827-1904.jpg  Restored 
  8. [23776] File:Churchill-in-quebec-1944-23-0201a.gif  Restored 
  9. [26640] File:Complexity classes.svg  Restored 
  10. [28485] File:Curious sand-stone rock, from Robert N. Dennis collection of stereoscopic views.jpg  Restored 
  11. [28501] File:Curtain Falls, a pretty nook in picturesque Havana Glen, New York, U. S. A., by Underwood & Underwood.jpg  Restored 
  12. [28546] File:Cutting down the Big Tree - just after the great 100 ft. Sequoia had fallen - Converse Basin, California, from Robert N. Dennis collection of stereoscopic views.jpg  Restored 
  13. [28775] File:Dam for flooding logs, L. B. Curtis and Co's, by Jenney, J. A. (James A.).jpg  Restored 
  14. [29760] File:Description of Terrain Included in Case File for Congressional Medal of Honor to be Awarded to Joe R. Hooper, Staff... - NARA - 305379.jpg  Checked 
  15. [40775] File:Farm.png  Restored 
  16. [41717] File:Flag of Garden Grove, California.gif  Restored 
  17. [44816] File:From High School, looking over Baptist and Methodist Churches, by Baldwin, Schuyler C. (Schuyler Colfax), 1823-1900.png  Restored 
  18. [45223] File:Galo Plaza Lasso.jpg  Checked (confirmed as a cropped version) 
  19. [48302] File:General view showing a church and homes, by Leonard & Martin.jpg  Restored 
  20. [52208] File:Group of modern dairy barns and herd of Holstein cattle at Lake Mills, Wis, by Keystone View Company.png  Restored 
  21. [52396] File:Grover Cleveland.jpg  Restored 
  22. [52875] File:Harlem River Bridge at Third Avenue, N.Y, from Robert N. Dennis collection of stereoscopic views.jpg  Restored 
  23. [59023] File:House.jpg  Restored 
  24. [60758] File:Indian Village.jpg  Restored 
  25. [62323] File:Jacob's Pool, Colorado basin, from Robert N. Dennis collection of stereoscopic views.jpg  Restored 
  26. [62340] File:James A. Garfield.gif  Restored 
  27. [63862] File:John Slidell by Brady restored.jpg  Checked 
  28. [66223] File:Laughter.jpg  Restored 
  29. [67817] File:Log booms and log jams on the river, by A. C. Merrill.jpg  Restored 
  30. [79398] File:NRCSWI01007 - Wisconsin (6863)(NRCS Photo Gallery).tif  Restored 
  31. [81521] File:Orchestra.jpg  Restored 
  32. [82926] File:Partridge on nest, by A. C. McIntyre.jpg  Restored 
  33. [93307] File:Presbyterian Church.jpg  Restored 
  34. [96402] File:Regimental headquarters of 21st Michigan Vols. 4th Army Corps near Chattanooga. Group of officers, by Taylor & Huntington.jpg  Restored 
  35. [98854] File:Ruins in Richmond, Va, from Robert N. Dennis collection of stereoscopic views.jpg  Restored 
  36. [98908] File:Ruins of Fort Sumter, Charleston, S.C, by Ryan, D. J., 1837-.png  Restored 
  37. [99958] File:San Cristoval Lake, S. W. Colorado, 1875, from Robert N. Dennis collection of stereoscopic views.jpg  Restored 
  38. [104842] File:South to the picturesque village of Wolpi (Walpi), first mesa, Hopi Indian Reservation, Arizona, by Underwood & Underwood.jpg  Restored 
  39. [110953] File:The River Schuylkill. Coroner of the Fairmount Waterworks, Phila., Pa., inquest of dead cattle, by E. & H.T. Anthony (Firm).jpg  Restored 
  40. [118870] File:View of a freshet that partially flooded the town with ice and water and destroyed the bridge across the Kennebec River, from Robert N. Dennis collection of stereoscopic views.jpg  Restored 
  41. [118871] File:View of a group of Mohaves in a brush hut, one man very emaciated, entitled, by Wittick, Ben, 1845-1903.png  Restored 
  42. [119860] File:Views of Wm. F. Murphy's Sons' stationery establishment, 509 Chestnut St. (opposite Independence Hall,) Philadelphia, by Cremer, James, 1821-1893.jpg  Restored 

✓ Done --Fæ (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

File:The 21st and 13th Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and the 15th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff retired Gen. Richard Myers review the General's legacy board after it was unveiled in the Pentagon 070424-F-VO565-012.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:The 21st and 13th Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and the 15th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff retired Gen. Richard Myers review the General's legacy board after it was unveiled in the Pentagon 070424-F-VO565-012.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Gbawden (talk) 10:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Ships from the Ronald Reagan Strike Group (RRSG) and Japan Maritime Self Defense Force steam in formation during a photo exercise in the Western Pacific Ocean March 18, 2007 070318-N-HX866-008.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Ships from the Ronald Reagan Strike Group (RRSG) and Japan Maritime Self Defense Force steam in formation during a photo exercise in the Western Pacific Ocean March 18, 2007 070318-N-HX866-008.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Gbawden (talk) 10:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Maurya1951

Why do you keep adding {{subst:nsdr|d}} to this page? That is for DRs which are closed as delete. It was already in the nsdr cat. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about this unexpected glitch, it has really caught me on the hop. I can fix this on Monday but not before. A slightly silly work around might be to change the C in category to lower case, but probably better to wait a couple of days. :'( --Fæ (talk) 05:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
May have wangled a temporary fix. Can't test while traveling. --Fæ (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Unexpected glitch? You're a human, just stop bloody doing it! -mattbuck (Talk) 07:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorted, I think. I'll make this categorisation more cautious if I start it again. Fæ (talk) 08:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Public Domain Images.com images in the Category:Travel

There a lot of these without further categories or a check-categories template, mostly not relevant to travel per se, but simply remote locations. This is a good example of how quick-and-dirty categorization of bulk uploads can both hide useful images and flood a category to the point of uselessness. It would help if you would add a check-categories template to these. Dankarl (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there was a good discussion about PDI in relation to the category 'fish' when I used my generic check category, see /2013#Category:Fish. Based on my new experiences over the six months since this batch upload, I can think of a few bot housekeeping solutions which may be smarter, let me come back to this one as I am getting over a cold which has knocked me out a bit and I would rather create and test a fix when I am properly on my game.
I note that a maximum of 56 images are in Travel and Public-domain-uploads.com. --Fæ (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
About 1/8 of the category, and that's after I recategorized some and marked some duplicates. Russavia has a bunch too. Of course there are also a bunch from various inexperienced contributors. My point is that adding one already-overpopulated category to a bulk-uploaded image takes it out of the work queue without making it findable. It is worse with PDI than some other sources because they often lose information when they scrape the original image site and do not maintain that link (not that the FWS links would help today anyway) so they don't have enough description to pop up in searches. Dankarl (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I do things differently now than I did for this batch upload back in Feb/March time. For the Airliners project (c. 100,000 photos) we use a backlog category and I only remove photos from it when there are 2 or more visible meaningful categories, for my DoD uploads (c. 32,000 and counting), I have a heuristics building process for intelligent categorization and only remove the backlog category after 2 or more meaningful categories and for my LACMA uploads (c. 22,000 art history photos) there were relevant specific categories to apply, as well as using a backlog category for volunteers to chip away at (progress remains extremely slow, unfortunately "aeroplanes" and "military" remain more popular topics than "art history", despite large notices on the Village pump). This approach seems to work reasonably well and, I think, represents today's best practices. If you can cut me some slack, I'll ponder how to apply the same good practice principles to the old PDI upload (c. 14,000 PD photos). I think it is fair to assume that any batch uploader will gain experience of how to do a better job of it as time goes on, my plans to get the community more interested in sharing best practice could be a good step forward; if we ever get to resolving logistics and agree some alternative dates that is. :-)
Out of interest the backlog/burn-down categories for the above 3 examples are:
Category:Images from LACMA uploaded by Fæ (check needed) (see project page)
Category:Airliners.net photos (check needed) (see project page)
Category:Images from DoD uploaded by Fæ (check needed) (see heuristics list)
--Fæ (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done See Category:Public-domain-image.com (check needed). --Fæ (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that helps. Moving on with cleanup, it seems implausible that PDI is the author on any of these. I have nominated one for deletion but suggest you just do a mass deletion of all that have PDI in the author field. Dankarl (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that is the best move for public knowledge. We established in a previous DR (sorry, I don't have it to hand, maybe I'll dig through the archives later [it is this DR]) that PDI acts as an archive of PD images where the "curator" has made reasonable efforts to check public domain status at the source (such as the Fisheries Agency) or has personal releases on record with required attribution on the site. We might improve the accuracy of the descriptions by replacing "PDI" in the author fields with "Unknown", which may be equally valid depending on the source (e.g. a published 19th C. cartoon may be entirely suitable using the attribution "Unknown". I have not checked, but where author was blank I may have defaulted to an attribution of PDI, so this inaccuracy may be my fault.
Fine for 19th century cartoons (though I have seen some debated) but except for US-gov and similar cases we do not usually allow modern images to be listed as PD if author is unknown. Dankarl (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I am changing attribution from "Public Domain Image" to {{Unknown}} for images going into the check category. --Fæ (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Another suggestion that might appeal to you and let you exercise your programming skills. How about (when and if the FWS site reopens) you find all the FWS originals of that PDI subset and recover URLs, dates (not always there and sometimes just upload dates, but PDI missed a bunch), original titles, descriptions, and FWS keywords, and check for duplicates. Dankarl (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll think about it :-). I agree, it would be a great improvement to have a clear link back to the government source. Unfortunately, I think this was one of those cases where the government body is a bit rubbish at giving unique IDs to photographs, this makes it a bit of a nightmare handling potential duplicates. Even for the Department of Defense which is pretty good at using their VIRINs to track everything, these do get accidental duplicated or lost on some re-use. Oh, and of course, sites like PDI tend to modify both the image and its EXIF data, making provenance a puzzle rather than a simple analysis. --Fæ (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

File:A cold mountain creek in Alaska.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:A cold mountain creek in Alaska.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Dankarl (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Categorising

You added Category:Public-domain-image.com (check needed) to many files I already categorised. Like File:Big white ship.jpg. Special reason? --Stunteltje (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, see the discussion above raised by Dankarl. I suggest leaving this one-off backlog categorization to finish (it will probably take another day) and then clicking the "check categories" link on any image pages to show that you are happy with the existing category. The choice to assume that any image with fewer than 2 existing non-hidden categories needs a human check is a reasonable one made often for large batch uploads, though it may well be that only one detailed category is most fitting. :-) If there is a set of these in a category or nested under a parent category, it might be suitable to process a large number (say, more than 100) using automation of some sort. --Fæ (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. No problem. I categorise as much ships/vessels as possible by name and year of completion and remove other categories like category:Water, Category:Oceans and so on. That is the reason that just one category - only the ship category - is left. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

expertise

Hi Fae, what is your opinion about this image and this image? Copyright doesn't seem to be a problem, but I see in both cases the possibilty that they were uploaded for abuse (of the "former lover" type or simply as harrassment). --Túrelio (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I would consider the following factors: I'm expanding a more here than you need as others may find an explanation useful
Plus side
  1. The photos are posed, the subjects appear to tacitly consent to being photographed (one being a self-photo).
  2. There is nothing apparently embarrassing in the photos themselves, the subjects not being ill, nude, being attacked etc.
  3. There is no current complaint or request to remove from anyone claiming to be the subjects or photographers.
Down side
  1. There is no explanation of sourcing, these could have been taken from Facebook, Gaydar, or similar without consent.
  2. The claims about homosexuality are not self-evident, for example the photo in a bar is not easily seen to be in a gay bar or has anything to do with LGBT life (it just looks like lads on holiday) and the self-photo does not appear to be of anyone notable for being a gay activist or with any reason given to be in scope.
  3. Both lack EXIF data and are the 1st edit from these accounts.
So, in this situation I see nothing requiring oversight or suppression, however the sourcing is of concern, so I would encourage deletion either by simply marking with {{Nsd}} or raising a full deletion request on the basis that without sourcing and evidence, these photos appear out of scope. In fact, if you don't get around to acting on these today, I'll mark them up myself.
Hope that helps.
By the way, the "former lover" problem both on Facebook and on a website that was eventually taken down, was intended for highly embarrassing photographs and with defamatory claims made against identifiable people. Any photograph on Commons with these issues can be removed by admins immediately. If they are particularly defamatory in nature, or appear to be private sexual photos released without permission (rather than just schoolboy stuff of "he's so gay") then Oversight is useful or just go onto the Commons IRC channel to ask for opinions rather than drawing attention to it publicly on-wiki, which itself could become a cause of later embarrassment for those involved. --Fæ (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Sure, if they had been highly problematic, I would have simply nuked them. While a regular DR might be fine for the first one (done now), after translating the french description of the second one (Google: Contemporary picture of the cornerstone of pro-gay activists in France) here a DR might be a bit problematic, if it is not really what it claims. So, I will nsd this, which is also justified per the watermark. --Túrelio (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
The Cameroid thing is an issue of itself (I did note the watermark, but the photo appeared unadapted). I have raised several mobile phone photos for deletion where the photographer thought they owned the copyright of their own photo that had been processed through one of these 'fun' apps that put your head in a frame, however as we are normally unsure of sourcing of background images, these are invariably a Derivative works failure. Considering that mobile donations are likely to grow exponentially as a proportion of uploads to Commons, these problems may well become an administrative crisis within a year or two. --Fæ (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

chc

Would you please stop spamming the sites with this template. I have now more than a dozen on my watchlist and not one of them definetly need more than one Category. Maybe more are possible. But often one is enough, the importance is quality noch quantity. Without checking is this only spamming. We have so much undone work here to do - why you make so much needless work? Marcus Cyron (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, a second time, rthat you understand ist correct: STOP YOUR SPAMMING ACTION! Youn causing work that's not needed! Marcus Cyron (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
You can find this discussed and a reasonable consensus for this simple housekeeping action on this page at #Public Domain Images.com images in the Category:Travel and #Categorising. It is not spamming, please do not refer to it as that. If you feel a wider consensus is needed than that already established, then raise a discussion on the Village pump. I am happy to follow best practice, at the moment this appears to be best practice. --Fæ (talk) 07:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

{{Autotranslate|base=Idw/heading}}

{{Autotranslate|1=|2=Files in Category:Hallgrímskirkja|3=plural|base=Idw}} Affected: 

Eleassar (t/p) 08:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

{{Autotranslate|base=Idw/heading}}

{{Autotranslate|1=|2=Files in Category:Leifur Eiríksson|3=plural|base=Idw}} Affected: 

Eleassar (t/p) 08:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

FPCBot

Hi Fæ;

The FPCBot is malfunctioning nowadays; and it seems Daniel is facing some difficulty to solve it. Could you spare some time to have a look on it? JKadavoor Jee 09:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Added a couple of thoughts, but I'm not going to delve much further as I have a backlog of other stuff and FPC is not something I've ever gotten into, so I don't really understand how it works. --Fæ (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. JKadavoor Jee 15:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

again

Hi Fae, what's you opinion about File:Carne.jpg? Is this real (consider the page of use) or just somebody smearing somebody else? --Túrelio (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest a DR as out of scope. There are a few tangential, possibly unrelated issues, but there are a lot of them if one thinks this through, I find these in about 10 minutes of looking at it, such as:
  1. Most of the print in the background is copyright Peter Westrup, I believe. There is probably too much of it on show for DM to apply.
  2. A similar issue is apparent with the visible tattoos, giving us both a potential IDENT issue and a copyright headache.
  3. The title chosen is potentially problematic due to forms of slang use (I'm not going to explain further), in the absence of a credible explanation, one should remain concerned as to the intention.
  4. There is no context to give this any educational value. If context is forthcoming in a DR, fair enough.
  5. This is the first and only contribution of this account, their account on sv.wp is not visible to me, presumably deleted and may have been problematic, maybe not, but not a good indicator.
  6. I find a DMCA notice in relation to a porn site in connection with this image (as a precaution I am not going to link to it here). A possible coincidence as I am unsure if this image is really connected (such as being part of a sequence), but this would lead me to have serious doubts and prefer to delete in the absence of a clear rationale of value for Commons.
--Fæ (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, though I didn't export such a full report ;-). Anyway, when I revisited the image and found that the initial "use" (placement) on a scandinavian wikipedia was gone already, I filed an oos-speedy. --Túrelio (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Advice and help looking up aircraft on flicker

I am looking to see if I find legal images off of flicker for the Hispano Aviación HA-1112 and the CASA 2.111 with Spanish Air Force markings rather then the German markings. I am trying to find legit images to replace the ones being use now. Any help in this would be welcomed.

Articseahorse (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest approaching Russavia who has been recently very active in looking at Flickr streams to upload a/c photos from. --Fæ (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
There are a few images ([39], [40]); but only two "free" images available ([41], [42]). You may contact the authors to get waived the restrictions. JKadavoor Jee 13:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Fæ's upload of the month for October 2013

No. 1 & 2 Army Film and Photographic Unit‎s

Hello again. Could you please fulfill No. 1 Army Film and Photographic Unit (from [43]) and No. 2 Army Film and Photographic Unit (from [44])? I suppose removing all files added to these cats from Collections of the Imperial War Museum. Regards, Ain92 (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure what you are proposing as a mass categorization, could you clarify? If you are suggesting Categorizing based on a general search, this would give unreliable results. For example in your searches above File:The_British_Army_Film_and_Photographic_Unit_1941_-_1947_BU4945.jpg was matched as in the No 1 AFPU however, it was actually taken by No 5 AFPU. A restrictive search based on lines in the description field might be more accurate, though it may give fewer results than you expect. --Fæ (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Mass plane images uploads

Is it possible to add precise category (or at least something like Category:Unidentified aircraft) instead of littering Category:Media needing categories? If you feel that all these images are so valuable, will be great if you will take care about their categorization yourself. Same goes for military photos. Thank you for understanding. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Eugene, it is not possible to add precise categories, that is why editors such as myself are going through uploaded images at the rate of a couple of thousand per day, adding CORRECT categories to these images. We seriously need to consider things such as whether people are working on the images involved; if they weren't then sure we should be questioning them being uploaded, but in the case of these images that is not the case. russavia (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
You can find this discussed and a reasonable consensus for this simple housekeeping action on this page at #Public Domain Images.com images in the Category:Travel and #Categorising. If you feel a wider consensus is needed than that already established, then raise a discussion on the Village pump. I am happy to follow best practice, if necessary by abandoning all future attempts at batch uploads on Commons as unrealistically expensive in volunteer time if that is the community consensus. At the moment my work appears to follow best practice.
If you took a moment to consider how much careful work is going into these uploads, you might realise that your claim of a lack of care, or that this is "littering" appears sarcastic and hurtful for unpaid volunteers who are seriously attempting to do our best to follow this project's aim of preserving human knowledge. --Fæ (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It's reasonable to expect from mass uploaders to not repeat beginners mistakes (see {{Please link images}}). Planes file names contains type information and could be used for preliminary categorization. Even if it's hard to deduce categories from names or source web site metadata, or such data is unreliable, it's reasonable to create dedicated category for each mass upload project, where interested folks could find job to do and advertize such category in relevant projects. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. You might want to consider that Russavia and I are two of the most experienced contributors here on Commons. I believe using any reasonable measures, I am probably in the top 10 active contributors this year, so if we fail to meet your standards, I doubt we could name any volunteer who is involved in large numbers of contributions ever could.
In order to show that I take this complaint from a Commons Bureaucrat seriously, I have now halted all work of User:Faebot (including the year long Geograph project), User:Noaabot (weather maps for the USA) and stopped any further uploads to the long term Commons:Batch_uploading/Airliners collaborative project while we investigate. These activities will not start again until we understand the point your are making, what best practice here is supposed to be and we understand what changes need to be made in order to meet any community consensus on how these batch uploads should work.
It would be helpful if you point to a recent examples where in my batch uploads I can be seen to have failed to apply a project specific or backlog tracking category for images without categories, or in the absence of that, not deduced any categories for an image. I am quite happy to mass correct failures to meet best practice, should there be any. As you have highlighted both Aircraft projects and DOD/MOD projects as a "littering" problem, examples of both would be useful for us to investigate your continued complaints. --Fæ (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
See File:Airbus A320-232, Jetstar Asia Airways JP6916029.jpg from Category:Media_needing_categories_as_of_17_October_2013 as example. Why Category:Airbus A320 could not be added by bot? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Your example has a backlog category. As you can see it was loaded with Category:Airliners.net photos (check needed) as well as a backlog watermark category that was removed after the credit bar on the image was removed. Consequently I believe this followed best practice as it was in a category that a current project team is working on.
It would have been poor practice to add the parent aircraft model category when the intention is to add the specific categories, indeed when I have done this in the past, there were equivalent complaints that I was over-loading the parent categories. As Russavia highlighted above this is how the project is planned and follows community best practice. If you wish to discuss categorization improvement, I suggest you consider raising some positive suggestions on the project page at Commons:Batch_uploading/Airliners so that we can consider how to work more effectively for the outcomes we are all looking for.
If you cannot provide some examples to support your claim that I was failing to add suitable categories at upload or failing that, I had not added a "dedicated category for each mass upload project", which from your only example it can be seen I did precisely that, then I suggest I start re-running Faebot and Noaabot, unfortunately halting some of these processes means they have to search through a 20+ GB local dump of commons, which means a delay of several hours each time. --Fæ (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I have re-started Faebot and will start uploading the Airlines project later on this evening, in the absence of any evidence that anything is being done here not in compliance with community guidelines. If you wish to create new guidelines in line with your personal views, I suggest starting a discussion on the Village pump, engaging with Commons:Requests for comment/Batch categorization requirements or creating an even more specific RFC to see if the rest of the community agrees with you. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
My point is that images from mass uploads should not ends in uncategorized media categories. It's not completely undetermined subject. In case of airplane images good initial guess could be made. Sure such guess may not be perfect, but it's better then nothing. Uncategorized media categories contains enough media from beginners who don't know about categorization (and may be other rules too) or people who made mistake (who don't make them?). It's unlikely that adding images from mass uploads with narrow scope of subject there will help Commons as a project. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I believe I understood your point previously, however your criticism of how this project is working does not align with any existing community consensus for how batch uploads work today or can work realistically in the future. Your complaint seems to be one of impatience with the project team (who cannot work on these images until after they are uploaded). In terms of categorization there is a scheme in place, which I have partially documented at on the project page Commons:Batch_uploading/Airliners. If you wish to raise further opinions please do so there where everyone interested can discuss them, rather than on my talk page, or even better join the project team and contribute to working out an improved categorization scheme. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Airport categories

From the list you let me know about here are the categories:

Two others are now created, and I'm trying to find more info on Lido di Fermo Airport and will create before long. russavia (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Rename issues - another thing to keep in mind for bulk uploads

One of the issues with indiscriminate bulk uploads is that even with cleanup categories to track work, manual cleanup lags months behind. This becomes a problem when an image needs renaming. If the original filename is totally arbitrary this usually proceeds, but if it is wrong in some way that needs a little local knowledge (like the difference between a US National Park and National Wildlife Refuge) or if capitalization or spelling are incorrect it may require discussion. (If the file has been up for some appreciable period, there is always the possibility that it is in use off-wiki and these uses could be disrupted by a name change.) This is less of an issue with high-quality source sites. Where source sites do not maintain high editorial standards, I suppose capitalization and spelling could be standardized by an automated process. As a reality check, if a phrase does not come up in a Google search, one can question whether it is the title of a real entity, but first you would need to separate out suitable candidate phrases. Until you have some sort of reality check in place for image titles, I suggest you stick to high-quality source sites or upload no faster than your support team can clean up and categorize your additions. Dankarl (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

None of my current upload projects is indiscriminate. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Categorizing of .tif images

Hi! I notice that you've added categories to a number of .tif files which only need to be in the Category:NARA TIF images with categorized JPGs. The .tif versions don't need to be added to further categories, according to the instructions there. --Danrok (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, yes I'm aware of it. You can find the related discussion at Commons:Bots/Work_requests/Archive_8#NARA_catsync.2C_revised_spec. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hidden cat problem

Hi Fae, I've encountered a problem with the Geograph backlog, and wondered if you could saddle up one of your bots to run a fix?

At present if someone uses hotcat to add a category to a geograph image then the template goes away as if it is now categorised, even if the category is a hidden one. Could that be changed or the template reinserted? I fixed one here and have come across several others where the only category we now have for the image is the photographer. I know you have a way to run bots that adds photographer cats without losing the uncategorised template, so you'll appreciate the problem. Obviously when I find them I can sometimes fix them, but it would be much easier if they were in the category for that geocode so I could just pick them up with Catalot. WereSpielChequers (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible. One solution would be to pick up all children of Category:Photographs by photographer (which is where all such category ought to be listed, if not the the Geograph photographers category I set up last year), then run through the 1.8 million Geograph images (luckily this can happen using a local cache from a large USB stick :-)) checking whether images with no visible cats use {{Chc}} or the Geograph specific version of it, or whether there is only one category and it happens to be one of the photographer cats which is not marked to be hidden.
I'm looking at something for Wales right now (which, behind the scenes, was rather harder than I expected), as well as juggling the Airliners project with my other hand, but this looks like something I could knock off, reusing some existing scripts I have around, in a week or two. --Fæ (talk) 06:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
That would be brilliant, thank you very much. WereSpielChequers (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Pondering this, a subtle solution would be to re-instate a removed check-categories template by checking through past version histories. This would have the benefit of restoring a past date rather than resetting the clock. Probably more intensive in terms of resources, so might take longer to run, and for me to write, but exercising interesting techniques. :-) --Fæ (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The date makes no difference to me, but it might for others. And yes in principle, since the template should't have been lost it is best to put it back as before. WereSpielChequers (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Kristen Gille helps load items belonging to her co-worker, Victoria Manning, and Manning's husband, U.S. Army Sgt. Jonathan Manning, into a rental truck May 25, 2013, in Moore, Okla 130525-Z-BI488-123.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Kristen Gille helps load items belonging to her co-worker, Victoria Manning, and Manning's husband, U.S. Army Sgt. Jonathan Manning, into a rental truck May 25, 2013, in Moore, Okla 130525-Z-BI488-123.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Gbawden (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Big Bend National Park PA272546.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Big Bend National Park PA272546.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Fredlyfish4 (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Family enjoying outdoors.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Family enjoying outdoors.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} McZusatz (talk) 10:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maiorana-Illand (3).JPG

Hi, the nomination of the additional files was not valid for the following two reasons:

  • The files were not tagged for deletion
  • The files were not listed in the DR

The file description page must link to the DR with the deletion template and the DR must link to the file. Feel free to create a new DR for the remaining files. I am already going to delete some, in relation to an OTRS ticket. Jcb (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The effective norm for Commons bundled DRs where all of an account's uploads are under review is to link to the upload list. In an attempt to comply with your reading that a list is needed I added a list. The user was notified that the DR was a bundle DR relating to all these images and tagging every image seems excessive, it can be done, but the easiest thing for me would be to raise separate DRs and this gets a bit silly for a large bundle of DRs. --Fæ (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

copyrighted descriptions in Images_from_ReusableArt

Hi Fae,

As the uploader I wanted to alert you of a discussion I posted on the Copyright Village Pump regarding a large upload of images you did in March. Let me know (either on wiki or off) if you have any questions or issues. Jalexander--WMF 23:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Followed up there, batch fix underway. --Fæ (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

 Question

What did you mean by this, "Blurred Lines, you may wish to avoid being drawn into discussing personal information any further."? Blurred Lines 21:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Just the normal practice of DENY, nothing deep. BTW if you have issues related to personal information it can help to discuss how best to handle it by email with an admin you trust. Fæ (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Chc

I said it befor, now the second and last time: STOP spamming this stupid template! Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

For an admin of this project, you manage to be remarkably rude to those attempting to contribute in good faith and firmly within project scope. If you think I am spamming, please provide an example that I can review to see whether it complies with community consensus or not. I actually don't think anything I have been doing this week introduced the chc template, but I might have overlooked something. If you continue publicly to defame me as a spammer, I shall ask for advice on COM:AN on how best to handle your claims. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Question

For a user that has been here since 2010, and already has more than a million here on Commons, have you ever thought of becoming a administrator or a bureaucrat? Blurred Lines 14:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

LOL, yes. Not being an administrator significantly hampers my abilities to do useful work here, including the work I do behind the scenes as an OTRS volunteer. See Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ3 for my most recent admin request. --Fæ (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"Happy Diwali!"

While Diwali is popularly known as the "festival of lights", the most significant spiritual meaning behind it is "the awareness of the inner light". It is the belief that there is something beyond the physical body and mind which is pure, infinite, and eternal, called the Atman. The celebration of Diwali as the "victory of good over evil” refers to the light of higher knowledge dispelling all ignorance, the ignorance that masks one's true nature, not as the body, but as the unchanging, infinite, immanent and transcendent reality. With this awakening come compassion and the awareness of the oneness of all things (higher knowledge). This brings Satcitananda (joy or peace). Just as we celebrate the birth of our physical being, Diwali is the celebration of this Inner Light. While the story behind Diwali and the manner of celebration varies from region to, the essence is the same – to rejoice in the Inner Light! And this year Diwali and All Souls' Day come together to fully defeat the Evil! "Happy Diwali!" – JKadavoor Jee 05:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (1 of 27).jpg

Dear Fae, Someone filed a bunch of speedy deletes on this image and other images that you uploaded. Do you know what is going on? Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

No idea. Looks like nonsense to me. :-) Fæ (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Hopefully this is not the work of a vandal. I filed a speedy on one image and then saw these other valuable images uploaded by someone I trust (you). Hopefully, the person here will cite the claim behind this speedy delete or someone will dismiss the speedy tag. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The IP is in Los Angeles, so this might be LACMA, but they would do better to raise a DR or just use my talk page to explain the problem. Fæ (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Fae, the whole series of images are not historically correct, the Museum failed to update the images by mistake, when they realized that the armor in question had been displayed incorrectly they took measures to restore it, this armor has now been restored to its historically correct condition and the museum is in the process of replacing the current images with the new historically correct images. These images are of absolutely no value as they now appear to anyone with an interest in Persian armor, it would be in everyones best interest if these images were deleted. Here is a discussion on this armor which may help explain the problem. I ran into this image of a Persian mail and plate shirt and I had to laugh, this is in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldantiques (talk • contribs)
    • Interesting. I would say this makes this small series of images within project scope as an example of an incorrect reconstruction and display of an artefact. This will be doubly so when there are corrected images to compare to. I think these should go to a deletion request where this can be discussed. As for being misleading, that is easy to fix, we just change the text of the descriptions and the file names. --Fæ (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I am a bit busy this weekend, so just in case these get deleted without discussion completing, here is the reference list:

  1. File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (1 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  2. File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (2 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  3. File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (4 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  4. File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (8 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  5. File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (9 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  6. File:Mail-and-plate dizcek (cuisse or knee and thigh armor) 6 LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (7 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  7. File:Mail-and-plate dizcek (cuisse or knee and thigh armor) 7 LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (6 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  8. File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (10 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  9. File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (12 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  10. File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (13 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  11. File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (14 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  12. File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (16 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  13. File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (17 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  14. File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (19 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  15. File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (20 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  16. File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (21 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  17. File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (22 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  18. File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (23 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  19. File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (25 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  20. File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (27 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I'm presuming that the missing numbers from the sequence were due to duplicate or incorrectly allocated images in the LACMA catalogue. --Fæ (talk) 06:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

  • This is not an historical incorrect reconstruction, some museum employee recently put knee armor on the shoulders and took a picture, the misrepresentation is when people look at these images and think that this is the correct way that armor of this type actually looks, as for changing the text description and file names, this has been done already but people have already passed these images around as legitimate images, they serve no purpose as an historical artifact.samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Plate with fresh meat.jpg

Hi Fæ ,

THanks for your comment. I'm sorry - I don't know the name of the candy, please move it to a name you consider appropriate.

regards, Gveret Tered (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a surf around later today and think of a better file name. :-) --Fæ (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Now raised at Commons:VP#A candy challenge for Halloween

File tagging File:LGBT UK History Project Time Capsule logo.jpg

Hi Fæ, thanks for your support on this. I've meanwhile posted something on mattbuck's talk page. --Ross Burgess (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Commons is not Facebook

Hi Fæ, I have been finding an almost infinite number of images such as Facebook (photos of people with a style of "I'm important"). I think you could make a bot to help this, using a dictionary with keywords. Do you know, by chance, you could do this?. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I could, it might be a month before I get around to it though. Here's one way of it working:
  1. Build up an array of matches for a backlog list (max of 500 at a time?) based on a standard Commons in-built search* for files including names that appear to use the automatic numbering from Facebook, or where other obvious key words have been matched. Eliminate those with more than 2 categories, more than a year old, used on other projects, or have OTRS tickets.
  2. Add the list to a backlog category (or a backlog project page somewhere) as needing human review.
  3. Refresh the list, skipping potential matches if the page history/project page history shows they were ever in the backlog category previously, and so must have already been checked and found to be okay.
* - needs to be tested, I have mental red warning flags about using regular expressions with the Commons search engine.
--Fæ (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Add you somehow missed the expert system becomes more intelligent over time, being able to add more combinations to the dictionary. --The Photographer (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The easiest way of doing that is to have an on-wiki page of regular expression matches that any volunteer can update. A real example I have been using is at /DoD matching. --Fæ (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Test set of images using 'fbid' format, so appearing to be uploaded straight from Facebook and could probably do with renaming or deleting are given at User:Fæ/Facebook. --Fæ (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Avaricia III Its raining money (2999308920).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Avaricia III Its raining money (2999308920).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Sarah (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Kevin and Aren

I hope you understand my edit here isn't out of personal prudishness or some anti-porn crusade. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I have responded there. --Fæ (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
We've got on well in the past. Please don't make this a battle. It isn't about censorship at all. I just plain can't participate at FPC if such images are on display 5"x5". My morality has nothing to do with it. I have no problem with the image. Colin (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, however I fail to understand how your comments about morality which you chose to introduce to that discussion, do not relate to your understanding of morals. It reads as an attempt to portray anyone who disagrees with your actions as having inferior morals. I am happy to write this off as a misunderstanding of English, however I can only go by what has been written. --Fæ (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Fae, I prefer to comment here rather than on the nomination or the FP talk. Hiding the image preview on the high traffic page is a fair practice followed by us, especially in FPC. People voluntarily do it; or an experienced editor does it as a moderator. I think you take it personal, as you are not very common there. (You may ask Howcheng or Crisco 1492 in case of a doubt.)
We review FPCs in our free time; sometimes at home, or at work. So chances are people around us, including children. We’re not expecting a restricted content on a page like the main page or FPC. If it is only a link, we can take precautionary measures prior to explicitly opening it. I think, that is what Colin said. Keep nominating if you wish so; but give only links, please.
As I said earlier, I sympathise with the discrimination and difficulties faced by the LGBT community; and I appreciate your works for them.
I remember Colin nominated a few of your works at FPC earlier, even though not succeeded.
[Offtopic: IMO, it is good for commons to keep such works away from the front pages, as a precautionary measure to not fall into the eyes of local governments. As a user from India, I can’t view the original sources page in Flickr. (Note: If your login ID is based in Singapore, Hong Kong, India, Korea, Taiwan or with Maktoob.com you will only be able to view safe content based on your local Terms of Service (this means you won’t be able to turn SafeSearch off). If your login ID is based in Germany or Romania you are not able to view restricted content due to your local Terms of Service.) So chances that such Govts compel WMF also to take such measures.]
So I suggest you to undo that revert, respecting the feelings of him (and many others, including me). JKadavoor Jee 07:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I am afraid this does just look like prudishness. There is no oppressive government to worry about with regard to this artistic photograph, it has been on public display by the artist in New York with no complaint or protest from anybody. If yourself or Colin wish to establish a special practice of censorship on FPC, then please do run a RFC to establish a consensus for doing so which includes an unambiguous description of exactly what is to be censored. There are past examples of artworks featuring (non-gay) nudity which were not censored, so this should be discussed by the community to ensure consistent practices for censorship that can be seen to be fairly applied and that have an independent process of appeal should there be a challenge.
Yes, the LGBT community does routinely suffer discrimination in many forms, both overt and covert censorship of gay artwork has a very long history and continues to happen today in ways that would not apply to "normal" artworks. One of the things I love about volunteering my time to support Commons is that artists like Kargaltsev are not suppressed here.
If we are in the position that explicit homoerotic artworks such as the Warren Cup can be put on public display by the British Museum, in full view of children (more than that, the display was even lowered to make it wheel-chair friendly, without worrying that children could then see the detail of the homoerotic artwork), yet on Commons any gay related nudity would be censored, then the Commons starts to look more oppressive than most governments. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
It is bad to take different stands for homoerotic and erotic works. But artworks and works depicting real people are different. Works showing genitals of real people are generally considered “restricted contents”, semi-nude without showing genitals are considered “moderate “. I’m against displaying “restricted contents” on front pages. We usually cover our genitals in front of public to show our respects to them, am I right? Take it or not; this is only my friendly suggestion. I agree we (the new generation people) are losing self and mutual respects day by day, nowadays. :) JKadavoor Jee 09:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
BTW, I like this picture; very emotional without any nudity. But not enough technical quality for an FP; as Colin said below. JKadavoor Jee 09:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You say "I fail to understand how your comments about morality which you chose to introduce to that discussion". Please indicate which of my comments represent me introducing my morality into the discussion. Right from the first statement, I've made it clear I have no problem with the image and that any image that fits Commons policies has a right to be FP. I'm disappointed you continue to use the "censored" word and that you choose to ignore my request to not inflame this into a battle over censorship. I'm disappointed you are trying to turn this into a Gay-rights issue when there's not even the slightest hint that is the problem here (I'd most certainly do the same for a similar image of two women, or man and woman). I'm disappointed that my attempt to find (on your request) a neutral definition of what kind of image might cause problems (from Flickr) was mocked by you in your response ("Thanks for your concern for my family..."). I am rather astounded that you think this image might actually be safe for work, because it has been on display in a New York gallery, say. I'm disappointed you use hostile language to me ("Rubbish...") rather than being mellow. I'm disappointed an experienced Wikipedian doesn't know the definition of edit warring. I'm disappointed you are putting words into my mouth ("please do not assume your morals are superior") and trying to score points by setting up a straw man to take down.

Fæ, I respect your morals and the right to host and possibly feature this image on Commons. I have in the past argued strongly for displaying difficult pictures (e.g. Smallpox on Wikipedia) but appreciate the need to show editorial judgement. I'm simply asking for some respect in return. I don't see why using a courtesy link rather than displaying the image in the FPC list is some great censorship issue. As my Mum said, pick your battles -- this really isn't one we need to fall out over. Choosing to use a link isn't a slippery slope towards censorship on Commons, and would be a great example of being mellow and trying to get along with one's fellows. I have started a discussion on talk-FPC. -- Colin (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

If you made a mistake when you stated "the kind of morality views at Commons", being the first point anyone mentioned morals in that discussion and in the process appearing to set yourself against or above the rest of the Commons community's "morals", then please do go back and correct your statement.
I am the co-founder of Wikimedia LGBT and Commons is my primary project. You can expect me to ask questions and to be concerned about use of Wikimedia projects where gay subjects are being suppressed or where LGBT volunteers are having problems contributing. Whether this was your intention or not, if this non-sexual photograph is suppressed, then Commons would appear to be allowing the censorship of a gay artwork. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Read the whole sentence. This isn't about me vs community "morals" but about people I have no control over such as my colleagues, my personnel department, my in-laws, etc. I can't dictate to them that they should be mellow and respect my wishes to view genitals in my lunchbreak. That you have misinterpreted it reflects you knee-jerk reaction.
I think perhaps you are unfamiliar with the (often over)-high standard that FP expects of studio photographs. There's a bit of a bias against them to be honest. A lot of amateurs are unfamiliar that professional photographs often look crap at 100% 20MP but just fine when printed or displayed on the web. Many reviewers obsess with pixel-peeping (see my other FPC comment yesterday). Perhaps it genuinely does have focus issues but I haven't reviewed this image in detail (didn't get an opportunity yesterday). You may be interpreting the negative voting for some anti-LGBT conspiracy but this not the case. Colin (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
As an example, look at User:Colin/Norden. All the images with a "*" against them are ones I think are contenders for Featured Picture. But I'm reluctant to nominate them because of the issues I note above. Colin (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Whether this photograph will be voted through as a FP is not the issue, the issue is censoring the image from even being displayed as part of the FPC discussion. Frankly if the FPC process is to censor selected images then I believe it would be better to disallow censored images from ever getting FP status; precisely the same reasons for censorship should apply as a photograph does not stop being NSFW just because it becomes FP, if anything if there is a problem then it must be considered a magnitude worse for FPs due to the far higher level of exposure and views they will then receive. If there is to be an RFC on FP censorship, then I think it ought to apply for all the community, not the handful that vote at FPC discussions. As you seem reluctant to do so, I am thinking of creating the RFC myself, just to ensure the community consensus with regard to this type of censorship is completely clear in the future. --Fæ (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done RFC created at Commons:Featured picture candidates/RFC: Censoring NSFW photographs. Please add past examples, noting that the example of the suppression of File:Tako to ama retouched.jpg was on the English Wikipedia rather than on Commons and so is not a valid example. --Fæ (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Well I certainly don't think FP should be censored so if you frame your RFC that way then it will deservedly crash. Perhaps that's your intention. I would strongly oppose such a proposal. I continue to press you to stop with the "censorship" stuff. Use that word and any RFC will fail -- that's why I called it the "C-word". It just hits an emotive button that people are unable to get beyond. Like the "a free licence is a free licence" issue I faced on the "Appropriately licensed" discussion. You'll just get a hundred "Commons is NOT CENSORED" votes and absolutely no sensible discussion.
Although Commons is not censored wrt hosting, I think there is room for the community to ask for some editorial restraint wrt difficult images being included on general community discussion pages such as the FPC list. Is this too much to ask? Apparently so.
Ah, I see someone has started already with the "NOT CENSORED" mantra on the FPC talk page and included a nude photo just to make their point. Well I'm off then. Great result. Colin (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
If you did not want to force a community discussion to reach a consensus on this point, then you might have been better off not suppressing an obviously gay artistic image proposed by someone as openly gay as me without discussing it with the community first. Concern created from your threats to leave should not supersede or override having a real consensus. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
No I'm not threatening to leave the project (but can't say I'm on a wiki-high just at present) just that discussion has now been spoiled by Ralf. I've never found Ralf to understand a word I say (major language issues) and to always oppose everything I do so I'm not surprised at his reaction. I see you've posted a request to not do that, but can't bring yourself to "censor" it yourself. Why is it you think it reasonable to show some restraint on that discussion page but not on the FPC page? How nasty for Ralf spoil a discussion I started in a way designed to make it less likely I will want to participate further. That's just not fair.
Your Centralised discussion says "whether censorship of photographs at Featured Pictures is supported by the community". This is absolutely not what the discussion is about. I would strongly appreciate you rewording your RFC. This isn't censorship.
As for me needing to discuss this first, or taking into account you and this particular image's sensitivities. What a lot of crap. Links are used by editors on Commons as a courtesy. This is not uncommon. I have treated this image no differently to that of any image of any sexuality by any Commons user. I am disgusted that you think you deserve special treatment. Colin (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
From the start you have accused me of edit warring (when I only made one edit) and called me out here as not being mellow for using the word "Rubbish" when refuting your claim. At the same time you appear to believe that your moral views should have priority for FPC and that a community consensus is a bad thing, while you reduce my viewpoint to "a lot of crap" and claim that I am expecting special treatment.
I think a pause for at least a day on this discussion would be sensible, so that is what I am going to do rather than respond to what appears to my eyes to have become a rant that would be better off not published on Commons. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Where have I indicated "my moral views" should have any say whatsoever? Where have I said community consensus is a bad thing? Really you are just putting words in my mouth. Like the whole gay agenda nonsense. Fæ, as far as I'm concerned, you are a guy who uploads a lot of photographs for the benefit of Commons, who I've worked with in the past and added hundreds of them to Wikipedia. I couldn't and shouldn't give a damn what your sexuality is and what kind of image you want featured. Your comment "you might have been better off not suppressing an obviously gay artistic image proposed by someone as openly gay as me" is essentially I picked the wrong fight with the wrong guy. I was under the impression we were wikifriends, hence my friendly note to you. You've just escalated this to some major battle about censorship and suppression of gay artwork, and been quite horrible to me. A break would be very good for you, perhaps you'll get some perspective and calm down a bit. Just a wikilink? Not the end of enlightenment. Colin (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Seriously Fæ, go ask some wikifriends offline to review your comments in the last few days. You need some friendly advice. Take a break. The more you write, the more of a complete ass you are making of yourself. I'm not a person who bears grudges. If you take some time-out and take a reality check, then I hope to see you back again at FP and I'll be sure to review your nomination fairly. I know you do a lot of great stuff for Commons. I'm just really disappointed at your attitude here. Nothing you say about me is true. Not one thing. Colin (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to step back and follow your own advice. Your action to censor a photograph from an established gay photographer was not supported by the community and yet you fail to recognize that your unilateral approach to suppressing an image you found distasteful from FPC discussion was not acceptable. Using offensive language to marginalise my concerns is not helping your case. Until you come around to realize that your behaviour here has been a problem and not supported by guidelines or policy, please do not write on my talk page again, it can only serve to cause more stress. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Break

Fæ, I have to agree with Colin here. This is getting absurd. The argument made regarding this image is clear as day: full-frontal nudity, male or female, is something that other contributors could potentially find issue with when it comes to editing Commons at work. I work in an open plan office and opening up the 'Kelvin and Aren' picture in the office would be highly problematic. It's nothing to do with the fact that the image is male rather than female nudity, nor around how it depicts LGBT subject matter. (My colleagues are extremely accepting and welcoming of LGBT people and I am out at work.)
I'm writing this from a commuter train on the way home from my job. If I were to open up the image on my laptop, my fellow commuters may get rather a shock. There are no children in the vicinity of my laptop. If a policeman were on the train and saw my laptop, I may be considered to be breaching the peace, or far worse. This isn't the attitude of a censorious mind or the mind of someone who is either intent on suppressing LGBT-related content or homophobic (and I'd like to think I'm not self-hating).
Let's stop the panic now. Homophobia exists. I had some idiot on the train shouting homophobic abuse at me over the weekend. Having someone make the good faith suggestion that it might be nice to not have full-frontal nudity appear on their work computer is not a good reason for working up this kind of lather about how FPC isn't "LGBT friendly". It serves no purpose except to make LGBT contributors—and those contributing on LGBT-related topics—look like drama queens. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Tom, do some research on this before making your mind up.
  1. I am not objecting to some click through process if FPC sets clear guidelines and monitors it. This would solve any concern you have in the unlikely event that you find yourself browsing FPC, along with the small number of people that ever take part there, on your mobile phone from a train. In fact, I recall the two of us talking about creating such tools in the past, so I am surprised that you think this might be the issue for me or my concern here.
  2. The only photo to ever be censored on FPC was this gay related one, despite FPC having nude photographs in the past. Why does nobody bat an eyelid at a photo of a nude woman but a romantic photo of two nude gay men (non-sexual, they are not even touching each other) suddenly causes fireworks and censorship. This should raise alarm bells for everyone.
  3. As far as I can see no LGBT related photograph has ever become a FP. This also seems to waive a red flag of concern.
  4. Yes homophobia exists. I am concerned here about systemic bias rather than individual homophobia. You know that if I mention homophobia anywhere on-wiki, no matter what the evidence, then the quote would be mercilessly used for *years*, so I am not going to be trapped into doing that thanks.
  5. I am gay, I am not prepared to be half gay or a "nice" gay just to fit in with hetero-normitivity or to play along with a PR game that results in no change or improvement where there are obvious problems to solve. I have been proudly and openly gay for many decades and had friends die before we saw the changes in society we fought for; you might think about the perspective on these issues this gives me. Marginalizing me as a "drama queen" seems rather offensive in this context, don't you think?
--Fæ (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Fæ, I read your statements on the FPC talk page, and on the Village Pump and on here—I still honestly think you are overreaching on this.
That this image was removed doesn't show that anti-LGBT animus motivating the removal. That there has been female nudity that hasn't been challenged while this example of male nudity has been challenged only goes to show that someone got around to challenging this. To show that there's some systemic problem with Commons and LGBT images, I'd like to base that concern on more than one image being removed from FPC. Rightly or wrongly, because mainstream society will challenge any claims of bias, the case needs to be watertight. Every time we claim there's a bias or discrimination issue and are unable to back it up with some good evidence, we lose credibility when there actually is a case of bias or discrimination. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
A systemic problem does not need a specific anti-LGBT animus, there may be other factors leading to this outcome. As for evidence, that is exactly the point of me asking for examples of LGBT related photographs that have got to FP status on the Village pump. If we can produce a list of 20 or more out of 5,500 that can be fairly judged to be LGBT related, then there probably is no evidence of bias; if the answer is that zero LGBT related photos have ever got to FP status, then that is something to be corrected as there would have to be bias either due to in-built bias in the review process or a lack of engagement with those interested in LGBT topics.
BTW, if I were raising this as an issue that no women or no non-white people had ever been the subject of featured picture photographs in the years that this process has been running, then my complaint would be taken seriously. Instead I have been marginalized, parodied, misquoted and accused of "playing the homophobia card". Are you sure you don't see a problem here? --Fæ (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
There are all kinds of systemic biases on FPC. None have anything to do with censorship. All that can be done is to encourage people who have a concern in that particular area to address those biases themselves. It would be unfair to ask those that participate there to addres them for you. Given the number of images you upload surely you could find some quality images to present? As a point of order, I think you would find no full frontal nudes of women have been featured either. 131.137.245.209 18:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Tom Morris for expressing your point of you. Fae, I think your new nomination is good; but a bit low resolution for the current FP requirements (Resolution – Images (with the exception of animations, videos, and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are "strong mitigating reasons"). Let us see what other reviewers say. I think you can look into these galleries (Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media#Portrait, Commons:Featured_pictures/People, Commons:Featured_pictures/Historical) to get an an idea what quality we expected here. JKadavoor Jee 12:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, though as the image has already been used in established publications, it is proven to be of publishing quality and of high educational value. Hopefully this counts as a good mitigating reason to support this rare 1869 photograph of gay interest. --Fæ (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunate you withdrew the image in some kind of petulant angst. It would have passed. 131.137.245.209 18:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Leifur Eiríksson

Hi Fæ; thanks for your creative solution of the issue with File:Kvinnostrejk i Reaykjavik.jpg - your version with Leifur suddenly gone from his pedestal made me smile. However, I think the image in this form shouldn't be used - without an explanation, the unsuspecting viewer (especially of a thumbnail) will think that for some reason, the Leifur statue indeed wasn't there when the picture was taken. So it couldn't be reasonably used to illustrate the topic "woman's strike in Reykjavík" without a clumsy explanation of Icelandic FOP and that the image was retouched, which has nothing to do with the actual topic of the image. Therefore, I took the liberty to upload a new version where I simply cropped away the upper part, which removes Leifur more naturally and has the additional advantage of making the banners better recognizable when viewed as a small image. I also deleted the original version showing the statue, as suggested in the DR. However, with hindsight I think your version would also be worth keeping - not just in the version history. It could be used to illustrate the issue with non-commercial FOP (such as in Iceland) in an entertaining manner, kind of "Leifur is gone - see where non-commercial FOP leads?" ;-) So, if you want to upload your version as a separate file, I would be entirely in agreement. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

And just by the way: The file name contained a typo ("Reaykjavik" - that isn't an existing spelling variant; spelling is Reykjavík in Icelandic and Reykjavik - with regular i - in Swedish, in which language the file is named), so I moved it to "Kvinnostrejk i Reykjavik 2.jpg", as "Kvinnostrejk i Reykjavik.jpg" is already occupied by a different photo. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

File tagging File:Airport, Airport Overview JP6327343.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Airport, Airport Overview JP6327343.jpg|base=Image permission}} • Jaybear • ...disc. • 12:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

If you make mistakes like this, please try to remember to tidy up user pages as well as image pages affected. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Luis Fernández paintings

Hi Fae, thanks for noting the issue with File:Luis Fernández - Course de taureaux (Bullfight) - Google Art Project.jpg and File:Luis Fernández - Tête de taureau mort (Head of Dead Bull) - Google Art Project.jpg. The bot checks categories on Commons to help determine death dates and it found a death date of 1654 in Category:Luis Fernández, but this is a different painter with the same name. I should have it check for inconsistencies. Thanks. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure Wikidata would be useful for this sort of disambiguation (there are many notable people throughout history with this particular name), but I have not a clue how to go about implementing such a thing in practice. Glad to hear this sort of glitch is a rare occurrence. :-) --Fæ (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Fæ/Projects/Xeno-canto/credit

Hi, I hope converting this to an independent template may invite more users, so as they can translate it.--Praveen:talk 03:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Now at {{Xeno-canto}}. Please do add a translation. :-) --Fæ (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I've converted it to autotranslate mode and added Malayalam. Please verify.--Praveen:talk 06:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for setting this up, it looks good to me. I have no language skills, so never got stuck into how the translation of templates is supposed to work. --Fæ (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Royal Air Force- Italy, the Balkans and South East Europe, 1942-1945. CNA4686.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Royal Air Force- Italy, the Balkans and South East Europe, 1942-1945. CNA4686.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Constantine ✍ 20:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Transiciones (Una nueva persona) (3352703668).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Transiciones (Una nueva persona) (3352703668).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} The Photographer (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

milim template

Thank you for import thousands of images from US Gov / Mil. But it should be nice to use the given templates instead of your own (my opinion) (example) i.E. this images will not found by VRIN in Category:Media from sources with known IDs and subcats. Maybe it is possible to use the Template:ID-USMil or other existing templates. --Slick (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Faebot added geograph cat to non-geograph image

Hi, Faebot added Category:Geograph images in Somerset to non-geograph image File:Southgate, Bath, from Stall Street.jpg, probably becase the text mentions another image which happens to be from geograph. I've undone the change, but you might want to improve the bot. Rwendland (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Faebot has just finished a run of 714,521 images across England, so I'll be reviewing what happens next in a week or two. The criteria does look weak, at the moment there is a double check that images in Faebot's "net" have text in the file matching either "{{geograph|" or "geograph.org.uk". The last one being the issue here and needs tightening a little, or being dropped, to avoid this happening. I'll need to test how consistently the templates were used for Geograph uploads before changing it. Thanks for highlighting the problem. --Fæ (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Nobel prize.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Nobel prize.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} 4ing (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Map of Serbia (municipalities).PNG

Thank you for the kind words, however, as I see, at the admin noticeboard, a few people have agreed with me, one guy agreed with User:Denniss, and right now File:Map of Serbia (municipalities).PNG is still locked, still showing the version that Denniss prefers. What should I do now? Nikola (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to (in a very mellow way) go back to the AN thread and ask that the file is now split into two versions. It would be better for you to get consensus on the record before creating a new file yourself though. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I should point out that:
  • There are already two versions. If you want a map of Serbian municipalities before Kosovo declared independence, use File:Map of Serbia municipalities before 2008.PNG.
  • More editors have supported that approach; misrepresenting numbers will not make a new consensus that suits your preferences.
  • It's probably better to start a discussion about a controversial image by going to that image's talkpage, rather than trying to pick somebody who you think is more sympathetic to your cause.
Fæ, you're much more experienced on Commons than me; did any of those points occur to you? bobrayner (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Image talk pages are generally a poor place to hold discussion, unless you promote it on a noticeboard as well. If you want to help out Nikola, maybe you can take this up on their talk page? --Fæ (talk) 09:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Painting from the Imperial War Museum upload

Could you please check changes in licensing in File:The Russian Revolution, 1905 Q81555.jpg. I have no idea how this could have been created by the UK government, assuming that this run-of-the-mill painting never left Russia. The name of the painter and its present location are quite certain, the year of the painting is not (if >1917 then it's FFD firewood to be undeleted in 2018). Kaluga.2012 (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Travelling today. I have no problem if you wish to raise a DR to discuss this image, otherwise I'll be able to take a look tomorrow or over the weekend. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I have done a small amount of checking, enough to realize that the photograph is likely to be of a sketch, not of the painting itself. I have no idea how to check the dates, however based on his biography on ru.wp this seems reasonable. It is guesswork at this point, it would be neat if someone with a background in Russian artworks would advise. --Fæ (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Fast hands (4060162728).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Fast hands (4060162728).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} 91.66.153.214 09:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy

Thank you for your attention to such things. Recent discussion at Commons talk:Courtesy deletions. --SJ+ 17:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Considering the offensive trolling and overly personal comments flying about right now from various parties, some of who are appearing on that talk page, I'm not in a rush to contribute. I may feel better about it all in a week or so. --Fæ (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Understood. I hope this finds you well and enjoying your winter. --SJ+ 00:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:A Czech soldier with Engineer Company, 72nd Mechanized Battalion carries a post during a European rotational force exercise at the Joint Multinational Readiness Center (JMRC) in Hohenfels, Germany, Nov. 11 131111-A-EM978-085.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:A Czech soldier with Engineer Company, 72nd Mechanized Battalion carries a post during a European rotational force exercise at the Joint Multinational Readiness Center (JMRC) in Hohenfels, Germany, Nov. 11 131111-A-EM978-085.jpg|base=Image license}} JuTa 21:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:A U.S. Army paratrooper assigned to the 173rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) conducts a training jump from a CH-47 Chinook helicopter into Bunker Drop Zone at the 7th Army Joint Multinational Training 131112-A-BS310-395.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:A U.S. Army paratrooper assigned to the 173rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) conducts a training jump from a CH-47 Chinook helicopter into Bunker Drop Zone at the 7th Army Joint Multinational Training 131112-A-BS310-395.jpg|base=Image license}} JuTa 21:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Request to look into an issue with a page in your userspace on English Wikipedia

Please see this section on my talkpage. It is possible that some code on your .js page creates an error category. If you could please look into that, I would greatly appreciate it. Debresser (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Categories which are children or grand-children of themselves

Do you have some statistics at hand about the amount (percentage, absolute number, ...) of 'loops' in the category-tree? --McZusatz (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing reliable. I am only searching out self children and self grand-children and these appear to be found at a rate of about 1/1500 categories. The spread is a bit clustered, so there can be several found on the same branches, not a surprise. Once my first run is complete (which may take a month or two) I think the amount of these that would then appear will be much lower, as up until now I don't think anyone was doing anything systematically about self grand-children though self children had been reported in the past. Consider it a first attempt at weeding a neglected garden, so future gardening will be much easier.
By the way my routine is not terribly defensive, it tends to grind to a halt or drop out when there are problems. I'm limited on time so I'm not looking at debugging it for the moment and I doubt the way I'm going about it is terribly efficient, so this is something for me to tease a bit more at some point next year, at which point I might publish the short bit of python that does the work.
Categories could make for some interesting graph analysis, with Wikidata gradually becoming more useful, I think there is a lot more that the mathematically minded might suggest as ways of making our map more logical or semantically reasoned... --Fæ (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so far. I am interested in those numbers because I wrote a bot to tackle the com:overcat problem. However, I see no way for the bot to function correctly if there are loops in the tree. Let's see if there is anything I can do, otherwise I may contact you again after the holidays. --McZusatz (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is not a new problem, so I suspect someone has a smart way of doing the tree walk. I suspect there must be a more efficient way of finding category relations than the API provides. A database report is probably much quicker and I have yet to get into doing those. --Fæ (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
This is an issue I'm also very interested in -- if either of you come across anything interesting, please let me know! -Pete F (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Problèe with an image you update

Hello,

There is a little problem with an image : [47] ; the image didn't correspond to the title and ancient versions. Can you correct that when you have a moment ?

Thank you ! Calame (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. Raised for deletion here. --Fæ (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Moderating comment

Hi! We should not encourage Russavia to use such an ugly language and aggressive style of conversation. It works only in his disadvantage. MichaelMaggs asked Rusavia to moderate his comment[48], he didn't do it, so I did it to avoid further problems. I won't revert your edit, but I do not agree with your action. Seleucidis (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, yes the discussion has become overheated from several parties. However striking the comments of others is not good practice, nor is it supported by guidelines or policy. If a comment is irrelevant or a personal attack then it may be suitable to be removed or perhaps collapsed as off topic. In this particular case Russavia is responding to some extreme allegations associated with extreme proposals which include painting Russavia in human shit. Some strong language in return does not seem a major crime when compared to those previous statements from others which have not been moderated, though some have been collapsed out of sight due to being off topic.
If you still disagree I suggest raising it with MichaelMaggs as he has collapsed several threads in that DR. I doubt it would be helpful to raise this as a request on COM:AN, considering the DR is intimately connected to how free speech is managed on Commons, but that is a possible avenue if you want to escalate the issue.
Thank you for not escalating the situation yourself by reverting my edit. --Fæ (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Drivers cross back over to Panmunjom, Republic of Korea, after driving a caravan of 501 cattle and 50 vehicles into North Korea 981027-F-XT789-518.jpg

Autotranslate|1=File:Drivers cross back over to Panmunjom, Republic of Korea, after driving a caravan of 501 cattle and 50 vehicles into North Korea 981027-F-XT789-518.jpg|base=Please link images}} Jean11 (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Adding these boilerplates to pages for users with more than 100,000 image uploads is counter productive. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 05:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays!
G'day, just a quick greeting wishing you and your family happy holidays and all the best for 2014. And of course, a big thank you for putting a leg up by doing what you do on Commons, and helping to make it the fantastic project that it is. Greetings from a warm west coast of Aussie. russavia (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind thoughts and greetings back from a stormy UK. Back to a bowl of steaming Christmas pudding in front of a roaring log fire. :-D --Fæ (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Marines with Service Company, Combat Logistics Regiment 17, 1st Marine Logistics Group, watch a video during a Beirut bombing memorial aboard Camp Pendleton, Calif., Oct. 23, 2013 131023-M-Yz032-299.jpg

Autotranslate|1=File:Marines with Service Company, Combat Logistics Regiment 17, 1st Marine Logistics Group, watch a video during a Beirut bombing memorial aboard Camp Pendleton, Calif., Oct. 23, 2013 131023-M-Yz032-299.jpg|base=Image license}}

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Caused by a WMF server outage I would guess. Away from home with only a tablet, but all these DoD photos are PD. Fæ (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright issue

Hi Fae, Could you please take a look at the image licence for:- File:Tewodros II Sebastopol.jpg. It has been made public domain, with a statement that the author of the book (that the image was obtained from) is "unknown but obviously died more than 70 years ago." As the book title has a date of 1855 - 1991 then that is not possible. there is nothing to show that the image has been published anywhere else, therefore the image may still be copyrighted. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The drawing is dated 1869, which could be confirmed by checking a copy of A History of Modern Ethiopia. It would be unusual for Zewde to be the first person to publish this etching as it would have been created in the 19th C. to be printed. I don't think there is the level of significant doubt that would warrant a DR. Fæ (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks. :) Richard Harvey (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

{{Autotranslate|1=|2=Files in Category:Absolut vodka bottles|3=plural|base=Idw}} Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, -mattbuck (Talk) 15:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fæ/2013&oldid=296806741"