User talk:Multichill/Archives/2020/February

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

Hi! A voice from the past!

Hi! How are you doing? As you might have noticed then I have been away from Wikipedia and Commons for some time. I started doing some stuff again and I have a problem on lb.wiki.

I would like to empty lb:Kategorie:Fichieren ouni maschinneliesbar Lizenz and the other categories like it.

To do so I need to fix metadata per m: File metadata cleanup drive/How to fix metadata but I could use a little help.

I asked for help at m:Talk:File_metadata_cleanup_drive/How_to_fix_metadata#lb.wiki. If you know how and have a little time it would be nice if you could have a look.

Also I wonder if text like this "<div id="Schabloun_Bild-PD-al>" is needed on the license templates. You can see them all on lb:Kategorie:Schabloune fir Billerlizenzen but if someone help me fix a few I can do the rest.

I plan to move files to Commons if possible but they do have some "problem files". --MGA73 (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: welcome back! Good to see you're back. I'll have a look at it later. 21:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! I see things changed here with structured data and we can now import files yay!
I saw a big danish file collection some months ago that I thought we could import but I forgot about it because I was not active. Do you still import files if I find it again? --MGA73 (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Multichill: Hi! Have you forgotten me? I could still need help on lb.wiki :-) --MGA73 (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@MGA73: haven't done this for ages. Looking at the category I see quite a few fair use files like lb:Fichier:BeerErica.jpg for which I would expect this to fix it? Multichill (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! --MGA73 (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Stamboom.png

File:Stamboom.png 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 ∙ +/−

89.144.220.185 18:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

"https://www.army.mil/article/27865/swift_and_sure_brigade_lives_up_to_its_motto" - This is not Bradley Altom in picture 6/8.

Hello, I am writing as I have discovered that the article written on Echo 1-44 giving blood contains a picture (6/8) that is a false / error photo. I am Bradley W. Altom, PFC of Echo Battery 1-44 69th AMD , 14S Stinger Missiles and Avenger Weapon Systems. This photo that has my name and the words that I said verbatim. This picture needs to be changed, I am very upset about this, please contact me via here or email. bradleyaltom7 @ gmail.com - I have my DD-214 and ID to prove who I am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baltom7 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

That seems to be an article on the US Army website. Why are you leaving a message here instead of contacting the writer of that article? Multichill (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Kronos.jpg

File:Kronos.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 ∙ +/−

87.213.41.58 18:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Then take it down.

Then take it down from your postings. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2601:248:4600:5320:FC79:85C4:A272:3B9A (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no clue what you're talking about. Please elaborate. Multichill (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

can you please remove my picture from this site.

Can you please remove a picture of me from your website, i do not grant permission of my picture to be posted on this web site.

Here is the link to the picture that needs to be removed: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_040204-N-6278K-001_Airman_Derek_Martin,_from_Southold,_N.Y.,_performs_a_calibration_procedure_on_a_pressure_test_gauge.jpg

Thank you,

Derek Martin — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.188.64.144 (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Your employer released and published it at https://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=11779 . 18:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Palati / Palataki

Hello, concerning the monument "Palataki" at limenaria Thasos, I have to inform you, that you are totally wrong. The palataki in Limenaria was a very small building in Limenaria, built also by the same company as the big Palati around 1904, tared down in 1983 (see my foto under "Haubi" in Wikimedia).Gerhard Haubold 15:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Haubi: I have no clue what you're talking about. Can you please elaborate and provide some links? Multichill (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

License PD

hi Mr. Multichill, I am writing to you because I recently came across this user who had uploaded some PD license files, i.e. portraits and paintings, the copyrgith cuo has expired for more than a century, I would like to ask you please if among these uploads there they are files that you think could be restored?--Bernhard Moltke (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bernhard Moltke: you would have to ask user:Krd, but given your edit pattern I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up blocking you, deleting all your uploads and placing your user page in Category:Sockpuppets of A3cb1. Multichill (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
look, I'm not a puppet, nevertheless I thank you for your answer and wish you a good day--Bernhard Moltke (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Editing my response to remove the brackets around user:Krd won't undo the ping he got. Multichill (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Bots/Work_requests#Adding_license_info_to_the_Beeld_en_Geluid_wiki

Hi Multichill! It looks like there are thousands of freely licensed images there that we could transfer to Commons. Do you know anything about it? Could it be right that the files are in fact free and okay for us to grap? --MGA73 (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Was mentioned on the Dutch village pump with a link to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Eurovision Song Contest 1980 photo sessions. I'm just going to wait a bit and see how that evolves. Multichill (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Great! It looks like they have some cool pictures including some Danish singers! If the files are good it is better to have a bot upload them than have random users upload them and ask for license review or make crappy a source. --MGA73 (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
It ended as keep. I have not heard from them about adding a license so I poked them on the Beeld en Geluid wiki. It will of course be easier if you talk to them as you understand Dutch and is our best bot operator! --MGA73 (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Rembrandt Peale - James Kent - NPG.90.81 - National Portrait Gallery.jpg

File:Rembrandt Peale - James Kent - NPG.90.81 - National Portrait Gallery.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 ∙ +/−

Ratte (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

WLM-IT IDs migration

Hello Multichill, as discussed in Bruxelles I'm here to ask suggestions on how to proceed with the mass migration of WLM-ID. We currently have 3 different kinds of IDs, all made up by WMIT for lack of any official ID.

There was a discussion where it was agreed to supersede the custom WLM IDs with a Wikidata-centric model. I've checked the lists and I confirm all currently listed monuments are on Wikidata.

The easiest way would be to first go through all files with {{Monumento italiano}}, match their ID on Wikidata's P2186, add a parameter "wikidata=" the corresponding Q-ID. Then go through all the items with a P2186 and P143 WLM-IT, add the Q-ID as new ID with the same qualifiers and references, mark all previous IDs as deprecated. Then we can edit the template and various workflows to only use the Wikidata ID and to gradually add various checks to the template (for instance whether the Wikidata item is really in WLM or not, and other quality controls that the arbitrary access allows).

Is this something your bot can do? Nemo 11:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: (from a talk page stalker) In case it's of use, {{MonumentID}} exists since last year (and there's a test version that uses structured data at {{MonumentID/SDC}}) - it's a single template that can handle multiple identifiers if they're on Wikidata. I'm happy to make modifications to that to suit, if it would be useful more widely (last year, Brazil and Portugal used it), and I can probably also help with the migration if there's a list of old IDs and new QIDs. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@Nemo bis and Mike Peel: shouldn't we be adding depicts (P180) in the process here? I already created User:ErfgoedBot/Depicts monuments.js some time ago to assist in the process.
Thinking out loud here:
  1. Add depicts statements to all the files based on the current id
  2. Replace {{Monumento italiano}} with some generic template that pulls data from depicts (P180)
Something like that? Multichill (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
That's what {{MonumentID/SDC}} does, try it and see what you think. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible error by bot

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:House,_Headquarters_of_the_Union_of_Romanian_Architects.JPG&diff=397977853&oldid=316671887

Your bot says source of file (P7482) is original creation by uploader (Q66458942), but I am the uploader and I would say that's pretty misleading, since it was a crop of someone else's work. - Jmabel ! talk 23:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

No, the original uploader is User:Bogdan-caraman. The file is tagged with {{Own}} ("own work") and {{Self}}) ("I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:"). Even the exif confirms this. So no error here. Multichill (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Jmabel If you cropped a picture should there not be a link to where you found the the picture? --MGA73 (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and absolutely there is. But the "uploader" for the cropped file is me. Further, this is the objection I have long had to {{Own}}: it is very confusing for derivative works such as this. -
Jmabel Strange I don't see the link. I only see "Source: Own". --MGA73 (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
My apologies, now I see what happened. I cropped this to remove something that was a copyvio (modern building in a country with no FOP), then deleted the original version that contained the copyvio. So, with that original upload deleted, the oldest remaining upload here is mine. So it has become very confusing: User:Bogdan-caraman was, indeed, the original uploader, but the oldest remaining visible upload is not his. So "original creation by uploader" is not exactly an error, but it is potentially misleading.
I'm sure this case is unusual, but I'm equally sure it is not unique. - Jmabel ! talk 00:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

geograph.org.uk and next?

Hi Multichill, I saw that your bot is currently structuring the geograph.org.uk uploads. I'm planning to structure the the panoramio and bundesarchiv uploads once I have some time. I thought I'll let you know, so we do not invest time on the same projects. I will use your geography.org.uk structure as a starting point. Regarding panoramio, my bot just finished a run to replace all links with archived versions. I need to repeat this anyhow for the ones that had error due to unavailability of archive.org, so I will combine both tasks. It might still take some more weeks until I can finally start on this. --Schlurcher (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Schlurcher: yes, it's good to coordinate. Wiki Loves Monuments (+related) and Geograph is what I'm currently doing. No plans yet what to work on after that. Maybe just do a pass on all photos that have {{Own}}, {{Self}} and {{Location}}.
Beware of files that are not born digital. I file like File:Torre de Rambla (Menorca, 2 de agosto de 2014) 01.JPG is a digital photo so we just have to describe one thing. If you take a analog photo that got digitized like File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1988-0908-049, Gloria Siebert, Cornelia Oschkenat.jpg, you have two concepts: The original photo and the digital copy. You have to be careful with modelling that. Multichill (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
The work you're doing with BotMultichill to transform conventional descriptions into structured data is a big step forward. Thank you very much! abián 22:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

broken {{SDC statement exist}}

I think I fixed the issues with {{SDC statement exist}}. --Jarekt (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I used it on several templates for several tracking categories and I haven't run into any issues. Multichill (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Structured data

Hello! I've seen your questions at Commons talk:Structured data and Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments/Structured data. IMO some properties are difficult to set, like location of creation (P1071). The information of a street (and house number) would be nice, but there are only some cases where it can be set. There are a few questions that you might or might want to answer me.

Currently I'm adding or modifying the following properties:

I'm not supporting coordinate location (P625) yet.

The data to be set is based on the informations at the file page and a really huge configuration file, but all based on the way I'm building my filenames, categorization and file description.

My to do list still contains a few points, including the following:

  • Handle copyright exemption (P7152) for Freedom of Panorama
  • Handle Awards etc. like POD, POTY, Participations WLM/WLE/... with ranking and so on (QI, VI and FP are set as structured data, may be I'll add the date in the future)
  • Handle EXIF data (only as group, but no suitable property found)
  • Handle hints to trademarks and personality rights
  • Handle attribution for CC lincenses
  • Handle technical information like HDRI or Panoramics/Stitching
  • Handle or grouping structured data, for example all license and author informations as a group

I'd found a lot of discussions, but no sample or guideline as answer for my to do list. Do you have any hint how to handle these informations as structured data? I know, answering the questions is a little bit of work, a hint or link would be enough. Your knowledge in structured data is much better than mine. Thank you. --XRay talk 08:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

XRay and Multichill, I noticed your conversation and I am also very interested in developing SDC modeling standards. I think, you two are at the moment the only people mass adding SDC statements, and in a way you are defining the standards. I was working lately on subpages of Commons:Structured data/Modeling cataloging the standards found in the wild, and I think those pages might be a better forum for making that kind of decisions (even if those pages are often very quiet). XRay, as for your question about some of the license related properties, I think those properties should follow standards used on Wikidata, see d:Help:Copyrights. Those are more developed for PD works than for licensed works but they should follow similar general structure. For example see about grouping of license and author info there. I assume that by "attribution for CC lincenses" you mean statements added by Template:Credit line? If so I think we might need to propose new property for that. I will look into expanding Commons:Structured data/Modeling/Copyright, first by cataloging current standards and than proposing new ones. Hope to talk with both of you more about that there. --Jarekt (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Just a short answer: Yes, the attribution is the credit line. It's important, because it's part of the license agreement. --XRay talk 17:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
BTW: My bot is working for my photographs only. And IMO there is another bot adding structured data too. --XRay talk 05:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Your bot and coordinate source

Your bot is adding the source information to files. I think you are using the information from "imageinfo" "metadata"/"commonmetadata". The problem is that this only contains files where the location information is in the file EXIF and as there is a MediaWiki bug not even at every of these files. This is easy so solve by using the "coordinates" property. --GPSLeo (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

That assumption is incorrect. I just parse the templates like {{Location}}. Multichill (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Ah, then you are only parsing location templates with the decimal degree syntax but not the DMS syntax. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Focus was mainly Wiki Loves Monuments and Geograph. Both don't use DMS syntax. Multichill (talk) 20:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Old Danish maps

Hi! Do you think it would be possible for your bot to upload all maps from https://hkpn.gst.dk/ to Commons (except Seamaps ("Søkort"). If yes we will of course need to work on categories, templates etc. But first I would like to know if your bot can access the files. Also I would like to know how many maps there are there. --MGA73 (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: It's all in Danish so I'm a bit lost. I would just send them an email about maybe working together by sharing their content here. Multichill (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Naaa that sounds too simple :-D I will ask them! --MGA73 (talk) 21:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Multichill/Archives/2020/February&oldid=433847327"