Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Bot problem again?

Some promoted (and probably declined) pictures disapeared today out from the Consensual Review section, but without any notifications of promotions in the talk pages of the nominators... Any idea ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked a couple of them and they were promoted without notifications. --Ivar (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My intention was just to clean backlog a bit. The notifications are surely a quite nice part, but all in all it's a bit too much for a user without bot flag, actually I thought that most of the QI active contributors follow their watchlist anyway and should not overlook it if one of their own uploads has been promoted. (And yes, there IS a bot problem... or at least seems to be one.) - A.Savin 20:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't use my watchlist for the QI candidates... Should I ?--Jebulon (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I watch all of my own pics on Commons, what is (I would say) rather standard for a skilled contributor. - A.Savin 16:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the backlog is not a problem for the bot. I suggest waiting for the bot to come back (it seems to be running normally as far as I can see) rather than trying to do a half-broken manual attempt. --Dschwen (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree.--Jebulon (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No big surprise to me, Dschwen, that you're attacking someone who tried to do something, instead of doing it yourself. - A.Savin 16:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A. Savin, that is a really weird comment you made here. I don't want to read anything into it that might not be there, so may you want to clarify what exactly you mean? --Dschwen (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for further clarification imo. - A.Savin 09:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely disagree, and it is not your place to make that determination. Unless you don't want to put your money where your mouth is. --Dschwen (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, after exchanging pleasantries we maybe return back to relevance. Maybe A. Savin's good intention was not happy but a bit more communication would help to avoid such half-broken manual attempts. It would be nice to be informed in such cases. After all this problem is not solved since nearly two weeks. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But why do I see successful bot runs in my logs? What exactly is the problem here? --Dschwen (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, is it not touching the CRs? Is that the problem? Did someone change the page headings? --Dschwen (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, great, somebody messed with the page. Admittedly the bot is a bit fragile in this respect, but this type of text parsing is very difficult to get rock solid. So please for now just try not to make unnecessary changes like removing a space in a comment. --Dschwen (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I call a great job, thanks !--Jebulon (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Dschwen: I am sorry, but I don't think it is obvious that a comment like New images go below this line. is used by a bot. I would suggest to mention the bot in the comment. --Leyo 19:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Leyo, I'm not blaming you for the bot interruption. It is a tricky piece of work that has been working with little intervention for the past few years now. I am quite happy with the status quo and I do not see the need to spent much time working on the bot as I would rather spend that time on my other projects. I hope the current solution of pointing the critical parts of the page out using comments should prevent this from occurring again. -Dschwen (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The new comments are clear and will prevent spending unnecessary time in future. --Leyo 20:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
he did it already --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And again

For instance today this promoted picture : File:2012 10248 Chateau de Fontaine-Française.jpg. Pline (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] 

Traceback (most recent call last):
 File "qic.py", line 537, in <module>
   doTagging( tagImages, QITag, '}}' )
 File "qic.py", line 80, in doTagging
   page.put(text, minorEdit = False, maxTries=100 )
 File "/home/project/q/i/c/qicvic/pywikipedia/wikipedia.py", line 1929, in put
   sysop = self._getActionUser(action = 'edit', restriction = self.editRestriction, sysop = sysop)
 File "/home/project/q/i/c/qicvic/pywikipedia/wikipedia.py", line 1830, in _getActionUser
   raise LockedPage(u'Page is locked on %s - cannot %s, and no sysop account is defined.' % (self.site(), action)) 
pywikibot.exceptions.LockedPage: Page is locked on commons:commons - cannot edit, and no sysop account is defined.
Yeah, looks like an image was protected from being edited. The simple workarund would be to add my administrator account to the bot config to edit blocked pages, but that is probably frowned upon. Let me see, I should at least catch that exception and let the bot continue. The whole design of the pywikipediabot framework really gets on my nerves. It is the exact oposite of fault tolerant. --Dschwen (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding some more output so that next time it is simpler to pinpoint the image that caused the error. --Dschwen (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overdose in QIC ?

Hello dear friends and/or colleagues,

I've noticed that yesterday, 116 pictures were nominated in the QIC page! A great part of them are good pictures, some of them are very good.
But in my opinion, it is far too much, for reviewers, to make good and serious reviews.
I don't want to initiate here any warm debate nor endless discussion, and surely not suggest the creation of a new rule, but just share with you my poor opinion.
As you may know if you look at my galleries, I think that the QI seal is very important for the "Commons" project, and I'm afraid that too many candidates everyday will slowly decrease the level of the label, because of the lack of time for reviews, and the weariness of the reviewers.
Maybe could we try to restrict our candidates to five pictures a day per nominator, no more ?
Maybe could we avoid to nominate a lot of pictures of the same thing or place the same day, in order to keep "full and fresh" the reviewers interest and care ? As for me, I'm very interested by a lot of things I see in QIC, even if some are not my "cup of tea". But I find a bit forbidding (no offense) when I see the same day six or seven pictures of different angles of the same church etc..., while these images, spread over several days, should retain my interest intact and continue to "catch my eye"...
Maybe could we review one picture for every nomination ?
As for myself, so shall I try to do.
Anyway, I think our works need that we pay more attention on them, and I'm afraid it is not every time the case...
Well, again, it is not a question, nor a request, neither an ask for a new rule, only a respectful comment and an opinion, and maybe a call for sense of responsibility...
Thank you for reading, sorry for bad English, and yours friendly,--Jebulon (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support five pictures a day per nominator --Leyo 15:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for comment and sharing your opinion, but please, please, don't vote ! It is not my intention to create any rule. My goal was only to catch attention about the too high (IMO) number of QIC candidates those days, and to provide some individual suggestions to avoid this in the future...--Jebulon (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, too many QICs, what concerns to me, I went down from aprox. 10-12 to 5-6 for some days. And I do always review more pictures than I nominate, independently of how many I propose Poco a poco (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick observation: I'm currently staying out of the daily QIC business due to time constraints, but I had a closer look in the last two days, trying to debug the bot issues, and I must say I am very excited about the large amount of really great images being promoted here! --Dschwen (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
+1, and: QIC needs more of careful (!) reviewers, and not less candidates. - A.Savin 20:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
+1 I was it, sorry. I have nominate much of my newest pictures but i've no nominate some al last weeks. I also think, we need more reviewers, who have a idea of photography. --Ralf Roleček 17:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jebulon in everything he's saying. As Poco a Poco and surely more of you, I review more pictures than I nominate, at least 1:1 if I don't have so much time, the problem is there are people who know enough about photography and the QIC rules (because they nominate good own pictures), but don't review anything. We already wrote the suggestion to review one picture for every picture nominated. I don't think it's a bad idea to put a limit to nominators. --Kadellar (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think, its a good idea. --Ralf Roleček 19:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC) but please note, i very rare vote at plants or animals, because I knew nothing about biology. Ralf Roleček 11:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about biology and I make a lot of pictures of flowers and animals. We judge the quality of the pictures, for that you don't need to have a deep knowledge of the subject in the picture. Actually, I think that reviewing pictures from a topic you don't know much is a good way to learn about it Poco a poco (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...But if you nominate by day too many pictures of plants, animals or whatever you want, we won't judge them, even we won't look at them...--Jebulon (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problems with plants of animals. I have tried to make pictures of as many different species as possible. It looks like everybody here likes buildings. As soon as I have some time I will go down the street and have a picture of all of them in my street Poco a poco (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are not wrong, even if a bit excessive, but, again, the problem is not the subjectsof QI candidates, but the numbers of QI candidates. The subjects of QI candidates is another debate.--Jebulon (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the discussion, maybe I haven't got an important point. But why is the number of QI a problem? --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now I am also lost Poco a poco (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Number of QI candidates a day is a problem, everybody can understand what I said at the beginning, and there is no discussion anybody will involve me in, EOD for me, as some says.--Jebulon (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: The number of QI candidates a day is a problem only if they fail to get reviewed. So I propose the following: The number of QI candidates you nominate per day may not exceed the number you review that day by more than five. Thoughts? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, a clarification: "Review that day" does not mean the ones you review must be from the same day's section in order to count. However, participating in CRs do not count. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly I don't received an reasonable answer on my question. Why are the number of QI per day so a problem? If s.o. nominates 30 pics per day the probability will be big that not all of these 30 pics will be reviewed. But: either the unreviewed will be renominated someday again or they will be not. Usually the nominator learns that 30 pics a day is a little too much and reduces the number of nomination by himself. There actually is no serious problem in this behaviour.
I try to review more or less the same number of picture that I nominate at QIC. This should be self-evident to all nominators but sadly it's not. Maybe it's not because some months ago there was a user that railed against the partnership "I will promote your picture, you'll promote mine". This doesn't impress me but I guess some are blenched about this and do not review in general. You will never be able to please everybody. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The growing success of Commons requires us to limit the number of applications daily. We do not examine all images and we leave aside newcomers, who might, with some tips, progress in photography. The ultimate goal is not to collect labels but to contribute to the emergence of new talent. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Producing more bureaucracy here, like limitations of numbers of candidates, will surely not help to encourage new talents. - A.Savin 16:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
+1 A.Savin. Jebulon has insofar right that a overdose of nomination will usually not be reviewed 100 %. But who is the sufferer? Only the nominator itself because his pictures will be avoided. So there is not a real problem in nominating tons of pictures. But: I would support the appeal not to nominate 5-6 pics a day. But only as a proposal not as a fixed rule. Some user don't nominate for weeks and make 10 nomination a day. So why restrict someone? --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SELF limitating candidates is not bureaucracy, only common sense. But again (please read above), I don't ask for any new rule. I think, as I'm an egoist, that my pleasure as reviewer is greater when I see a reasonable number of pictures a day, and some others, like me, think so. Therefore I think it should be better if we had less candidacies by day. That's all. And everybody remains free to do as he likes and wants. It is just my thought. Please notice that me too, I have personally tons of pictures waiting for a nomination...--Jebulon (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vier Tilden

Ich erhalte immer wieder die Aufforderung, mit vier Tilden zu unterzeichnen. Das funktioniert aber nicht, obwohl Java auf meinem Rechner installiert ist. Also muss ich – wie es in der Anleitung oberhalb der Bilder empfohlen wird – aufwendig von Hand signieren und das Datum eintragen. Viele Grüße -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lothar Spurzem says that he still receives the order to sign with the four tildes, even if Java is installed on his browser, and it is a problem for him.--Jebulon (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Java has nothing to do with this issue, it is Javascript that needs to be enabled on the page (Java and Javascript have as much in common as Ham and Hamster). --Dschwen (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nochmal auf Deutsch: Java hat nix damit zu tun, Javascript muss aktiviert sein auf der QIC Seite. Hast Du evtl. browser erweiterungen wie NoScript oder Adblock installiert? Wenn ja, dann bitte fuer commons.wikimedia.org eine Ausnahme setzen. --Dschwen (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Schönen Dank für die Erläuterung, aber ich kenne mich mit QIC und diesen Dingen nicht aus. Überdies wundere ich mich, dass die vier Tilden bei der Diskussion weiter unten auf der Seite genau wie hier funktionieren. Anscheinend bin ich aber auch nicht der Einzige, der diese Schwierigkeiten hat, denn sonst gäbe es nicht die Empfehlung, nötigenfalls Name, Uhrzeit und Datum manuell einzugeben. Freundliche Grüße -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review

I don't know this review is justified or not and I have strange feelings with User:Pollycat's reviews. -- JDP90 (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. If you see someone just overwriting an existing review please revert immediately and leave a notice here to call in the reinforcements. This is not acceptable. --Dschwen (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I may be too suspicious but this users comments on promotion of QIs is very similar to another user. And this user promoted numbers of photos of that user. This is one of the examples. -- JDP90 (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he did not only vote on User:Danesman1's pictures, and even opposed one oh his pics. The high number of votes on Danesman1's pics could be related to the high number of nominations by that user. I would not want to jump to conclusions just now. If you disagree with his reviews or find him to be to lenient, you can always set the nomination status to discuss. --Dschwen (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The QI Helper has no option to select 'discuss' if there is only comments; no votes. And if we select 'promote', it simply ignore the previous comments. It may be the thing happened here. I usually add tags like 'br' etc. which very time consuming. :( -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Jkadavoor, please don't be sad about that. Just file a bug report with the developer of QIHelper! --Dschwen (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was right, both accounts of user:Danesman1 and user:Pollycat are blocked with an expiry time of indefinite for abusing multiple accounts. --JDP90 (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Downsampling again

Right now, at QIC, there is an incentive for nominators who take 10+ MP pictures that aren't quite crisp-sharp to downsample them to make them indistinguishable from a sharp 2 MP picture, which will pass review. Of course, this benefits no one and just reduces the amount of data available in the file. I think we should add a recommendation for reviewers to look at images at 2000px (around 2-3 MP for a landscape aspect ratio) to be able to compare soft high-resolution images and sharp low-resolution images fairly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got more or less the same feeling than you with pictures taken with wide angle lens which is clearly not as sharp as telezoom. It doesn't bother me more, I'm here to get reviews good or bad ^_^ --PierreSelim (talk) 06:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I personally do is, I first review it at preview size (800px) for composition, then 100% for detail, and if I like it, promote. If it looks unsharp, I manually edit the preview to be 2000px and if it's tack-sharp, I promote. I think having a 2000px preview size option will help. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you using the QI-Vote-Helper? I could add such an option to that tool. I agree with your opinion on the downsampling issue. --Dschwen (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be good. Though I find the "Examine" feature cumbersome to use; I would prefer that a link to a standalone 2000px version be provided. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Downsampling again" ? Indeed... Down with the downsampling endless and useless debates ! Let's review pictures as they are. We have a minimum size requirement, I think it is enough.--Jebulon (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing any sort of rule, however; I'm just saying, we should make it easier to evaluate photos at 2 MP resolution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no problem. Just to say that almost every three months, somebody comes here to tell about downsampling... Nothing personal against you, of course !--Jebulon (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet?

At 13. Sep. there was a user account "Elzewir" created, which until now only has few edits: promotion of pictures from "Enamo". Perhaps we should have a look on this. --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User warned. Yann (talk) 11:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Related to this topic and as a result of this thread above it was confirmed that the users Danesman1 and Pollycat are one and were blocked accordingly. Poco a poco (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum requirement to review

Hello, when I came here I was surprised that there were no minimum requirement for those who review pictures, but just thought that there had to be a good reason to do so. After some time here I still wonder if it is a good idea. In principle if somebody does not review with good criteria due to lack of experience, other reviewers can send the pictures to CR and ensure that the QI level is held. So far, so good.

What I have observed, though, is that when we have cases like that one, we spend valuable time to get things straight (last case was this one), and we shouldn't spend our time re-reviwing too many pictures. We also have the opposite case, a reviewer with solid knowledge about photography raising the bar significantly and so declining lots of pictures. People wonder then why does he/she dare to do so without presenting his/her work to others to get feedback (since nobody is perfect). I also believe that in order to judge whether somebody's work is good or not you had preferably tried it yourself before, otherwise a solid review is not feasible.

Also the fact that there are no minimum requirements (even not a single edit!) to review the photographers work could wrongly guide to the perception that the task is trivial and can be done by anybody, but that's for sure not the case.

I began to review others works after I got my QI #100. During that time I learnt a lot (...after 700+ QIs I am still learning and there is a long way to go :)) and I didn't have the impression that I waited too long. I wouldn't of course expect such a requisite as a rule, it was just my decision and I would do it again. Getting experienced users frustrated with reviews done by a non prepared reviewer would be fatal.

What I'd like to propose is that the reviewers have at least 1 own QI (independently of the number of edits). What do you think? Regards, Poco a poco (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for 100 QIs as a minimum requirement is a sure way to choke this page to death. I still think it is a good approach to keep the rules to a minimum and encourage participation. And it really isn't rocket science. --Dschwen (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is why I proposed 1, not 100, QIs before getting started to review others' work. By the way, although I waited for a while to review by now I have balanced the total amount of pictures I reviewed versus those pictures of mine reviewed by others, so, the balance in this case is positive and there was no choke in the long run. Poco a poco (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm watching the process there for some time now and got two images promoted and a bunch declined. I think I learnt more from a decline with a well explained reason than from a promotion. However, I've to say that I currently don't feel like I can review other people's pictures, even thought that I really would like to do this. In my opinion it is better to comment on all pictures than ignoring some and leaving them unassessed (the reason I would actually like to comment). I don't think that someone with one QI is able to review (at least not when the person is an amateur just like me). However, I think that raising the bar here will probably lead to more unassessed pictures, which doesn't help the newer people at all. Maybe something like a QI mentoring program for reviewers would help more than any "You need to have x QIs before you can promote/decline pictures here" rule. -Barras talk 21:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I was the only person who had noticed the number 100 as own requirement.It is important to maintain a good quality of this section, is the best way to learn. --The Photographer (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following the reviews

I see some comments here on the huge number of nominations and so on a large number of promotions. Of course it's great, but I feel I can hardly follow my nominations and reviews. Finding a picture, I did comment on a few days ago, takes me like a few minutes. Sure I've found eventually that I can ctrl+f and search for my nickname, though it's still not very convenient. I was wondering whether there is a technical possibly to have something like a watchlist for this. I got to the idea that if the nominations would be placed in the discussion page of the file, one could simply add it to one's watchlist. That demands redesigning the QIC page, and I don't know if it's worth it. Advantages of that would be:

  • possibility of watching particular nominations,
  • possibility of filtering the QIC page vs. (for example): whether the nomination is discussed, promoted or not yet reviewed, the date of nomination, maybe the date of the last comment could be useful, some other filters I didn't though of yet,
  • easy access to the past nomination's discussion (now it is quite hard sometimes).

Of the possible problems I could think of lags on the page aggregating the QICs. In general I'm just pointing that current technical design has, in my opinion, some issues when the number of nominations is large. Maybe there is another solution for this problem. --sfu (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Double reviews

The other thing I have though about recently is the people are viewing quite often pictures that are already promoted. If they find some flaw they do mention it in the nomination and switch from promotion to discussion. In case if everything is ok though, they don't mention that they have made a second review, third or how many nobody knows actually. I think there should be some system of encouraging people to mention that they have made a second review. Why we might need to know that the second or further reviews have been made already? First some people might not the review third or fourth or how many time, so they save time and can review other pictures. Second it's not a bad idea for the nominator to knows that the pictures has been checked by more than one person (which now they don't know). Third, actually it would interesting to know, in just in the statistical meaning, how many reviews are made on some particular pictures. Although I know plenty of pictures passed without any review, I'm sure there are many that have a few reviews made. How can we encourage people to mention they latter reviews? I think if the number of reviews (support votes) were given in the QI template people would mention that they have made additional views when they like the picture. Of course, it might be a problem for some people that this creates something like a degree system, where not all QIs would be equal. But I don't think it is supposed to be equal. --sfu (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is moving to a new home

Hi all, I'm hosting the QICbot on Wikimedia Labs now. You can see its logs at http://bots.wmflabs.org/~dschwen/qicbot --Dschwen (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vier Tilden

Ich erhalte immer wieder die Aufforderung – wahrscheinlich von einem Bot –, mit vier Tilden zu unterzeichnen. Dieser Aufforderung käme ich allzu gern nach; denn es wäre einfacher als jedes Mal den Benutzernamen, die Uhrzeit und das Datum zu schreiben. Aber: Es funktioniert zwar hier in der Diskussion und bei dem Consensual rewiew, aber nicht bei den Nominations, obwohl Java auf meinem Rechner installiert ist. Ich hoffe sehr, dass jemand meinen Beitrag liest, der Deutsch versteht und der das Problem lösen kann. Viele Grüße -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mann, Lothar, auf die Frage habe ich oben bereits geantwortet. Das hat nicht mit java zu tun!!! --Dschwen (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Das problem ist ein Bug in Mediawiki. Ich habe dafuer einen javascript workaround geschrieben. ANDERS GEHT ES NCHT. Signaturen werden in gallery tags von mediawiki nicht automatisch expandiert. Wechsel den Browser, schalte Javascript ein, schalte adblock, noscript und den ganzen mist fuer commons.wikimedia.org aus. --Dschwen (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Defense.gov photo essay 090215-D-1852B-017.jpg

Hello fellows!

This image was not created by a Wikimedian but it was supported by User:Kreuzschnabel on 25th September 2012. This support was wrong. I support a removal od the QI-status because it is an obvious violation of QI-rules. --High Contrast (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Support OK with me. Yann (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support the removal, per nom.--Jebulon (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC) But a vote is not needed: it is a fact, not an opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 09:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support good idea --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because otherwise it takes the fun out of QI if people just sumbit tons of pretty NASA or Flickr pictures. It binds limited reviewer resources and adds nothing, in particular it does not motivate commons contributors and does not point out the original content that is created by commons users. --Dschwen (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All tags (I hope) removed by me.--Jebulon (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict issues

See Commons:Village_pump#Edit_conflict_issues -mattbuck (Talk) 11:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Try to avoid too much time in the edit sceen (15 minutes is too much). Click the edit link after evaluating the work, write the comment quick and hit save. Hope it helps (if you are lucky enough). :) -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just click edit section again when it ecs. There is nothing wrong with taking 15mins to edit. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WTF?!?? again and again same problem. -- Smial (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not an EC issue it seems, just happened to me w/o EC. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my case I did NOT use QI-Helper. And it was not 15 minutes, perhaps 3 ... -- Smial (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New category

Hi! I've created a category called Category:Quality images of objects, located inside Category:Quality images by subject. Could someone add the images from Commons:Quality images/Subject/Objects? I don't know how to do it quickly (by bot or whatever). There's also the problem that not all the pictures there fit the category. Thank you! --Kadellar (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What pictures don't fit the category? If they are not pictures of objects the should not be on Commons:Quality images/Subject/Objects. --Dschwen (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For example, there's a category for QI of vehicles, which are also inside objects. --Kadellar (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Signature bug?

For some reason --~~~~ did not get evaluated in someone's edit, and the signature got attributed to me here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

edit??

I think this kind of edits of reverting QICbot edit will malfunction the bot. I don't know what to do so I'm posing here. -- JDP90 (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of that already happened in the past, Dschwen advised to put the requests back to QIC that time. I mean, otherwise a lot of promoted candidates will get lost without receiving the seal, which is surely no good alternative. - A.Savin 13:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are public QICbot logs now: http://bots.wmflabs.org/~dschwen/qicbot/ . Let's check them. --Dschwen (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the site was not responsive some time during the bot run. I'll have to figure out how make pywikipediabot framework try longer with more delays. --Dschwen (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Worst thing that can happen by putting the images back on the page is the occurrence of duplicates on the gallery pages. But let's not worry about that, as it should be easy to fix using a bot if it really becomes an issue. --Dschwen (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parody images aren't welcome on commons, as Parody should aim for high resolution rather than humour ?

hires

Is this a sensible policy ? Currently commons has pretty much no parody at all, save it be boring historical stuff, and precious little of that. Newspapers have never gone after high resolution, but hey, commons is not exactly in touch with the real world is it. Penyulap ☏ 14:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So called "Parody images" are not exempt from the technical criteria that determine what a QI is. --Dschwen (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not only technical quality, if I may say: this is a derivative (not original enough) of a picture not made by a wikimedian and therefore not eligible for a QI candidacy.--Jebulon (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, derivatives are OK, e.g. a photo of a PD painting that you took yourself. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how a set of guidelines that are not written with parody in mind can fulfil the stated objectives of the quality image system. Basically, it's just a big fat fuck off to all serious satirical / parody / political commentary artists out there, and the reason why the related articles are in the state that they are. Internet memes are popular by definition, and commons has nothing. Taking guidelines that were written with 'this will do for now, it can be fixed later' as gospel is a great way to kill the project, in my humble opinion. Not that commons is healthy in the first place compared to flickr, youtube, or any serious commercial site. WP commons just can't compete except in the stifling bureaucracy department. Penyulap ☏ 00:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are being a bit dramatic here. No one gives anybody a big fat fuck off. QI is about images with a baseline level of technical quality. If your image does not fulfill the criteria of this particular assessment project it still does not mean it is not welcome on commons. I encourage you to suggest an assessment project for especially funny images (FI maybe). --Dschwen (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Whambo.jpg
the soon to be deleted (per copyright paranoia) parody whambo.jpg
Do you think the idea has merit ? the signals I am getting repeatedly is that humour has no place on commons and wikipedia in general. Also, as a separate assessment project, it would be doomed to fail just as featured sounds has failed. Creating an assessment project for the sake of half a dozen images maximum, do you think that is a good idea ? Penyulap ☏ 02:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you are getting your "signals". In order to have a productive discussion you'll have to be a bit less vague. Have you consulted COM:SCOPE yet? It says that images on commons Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. If you can argue that a particular "funny image" or "parody image" (whatever that is supposed to mean) fulfills these criteria then you should not mind those "signals" that you are picking up (with the antennae on the picture? Is that you with the yellow stripes? ;-). If you cannot make a case for these images, for the love of god please don't be one of these crazy people that scream "CENSORSHIP!". Commons is not a dump for any and all pictures on the web. So called funny pictures can still be uploaded to imgur and be posted on reddit. --Dschwen (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See ? there you are agreeing with me outright. If People want to know what is humour, if they want to know what is parody, if they want to know what is an internet meme, then god help them, they won't find it here. (btw I haven't checked those two sites you mentioned) so they are the place for the funnies then ? because commons is no place for it. Penyulap ☏ 02:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a dull place, and everyone here is dead inside. Leave, while you still can! --Dschwen (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Need to go out with the bang of a whoopee cushion.
But seriously, cartoons are never ever presented in HiRes. They are cartoons. you see them in the newspaper. You see books full of comic strips. The application of HiRes as a requisite for a cartoon or parody image so completely ignores the entire educational point of the artwork in the first place. What is next ? all featured pictures must be SVG no exceptions ? it makes exactly the same amount of sense. Penyulap ☏ 02:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what? You seem to have this misconception that every picture has a right to get a QI or FP badge. This is not the case. There are clear criteria and clear aims for the QI and FP projects. Deal with it. Just because a picture is supposedly funny it does not get a free pass on quality. And you are also confusing not getting a QI or FP badge with the image is not welcome on commons. This is complete nonsense, and you should get it out of your head as soon as possible. --Dschwen (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC) P.S. COM:VI is an assessment project that is not focused on technical quality but rather on uniqueness and value to the projects. Instead of barking up this (the wrong!) tree, you should take a look at them. And even if you don't get a VI seal, this does not mean your image will be deleted. Less than a few percent of images get some kind of badge or seal. --Dschwen (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some actual numbers: We have about 18,422 Featured Pictures, 48,440 Valued Images, and 360,709 Quality Images out of 106,885,170 files in total. FP/QI/VI are approximate numbers and likely too high by a few. This means way less than half a percent of images get any kind of badge!. --Dschwen (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
well ok, a lot of that makes sense. Still, the state of articles like internet meme in comparison to what is available on the wider Internet would attest to the fact that artists are not welcome on commons. (And I'll say it until you tell me to f off :)

The problem is made worse by the confusing crap state of the project page, which states,

"Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects."

plus, a helpful number of links to COM:VI (the number is zero), co-incidentally almost the same number the FP page has basically VI has been very well hidden. I think I might copy across the paragraph from VI that explains the difference between all three, do you support that idea ? or should it be kept a secret a whole lot longer ? (need I mention the big fat F off again?) Penyulap ☏ 03:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the moment the idea of improving the page comes up, I get the usual response..ⓘ Penyulap ☏ 06:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Albeit you are arguing in a most pointy and annoying manner as if we are all a bunch of idiots , I agree with your observation about the purpose section of the quality images project page: That it does not properly set the stage concerning the different image programs and does not do a serious effort to guide the user into figuring out which image assessment program to target which types of contributions. When we set up the COM:VI years ago, we tried to set the scene there with a IMO balanced section Difference between valued images, quality images, and featured pictures comparing the three assessments programs. I would propose adapting that section into the Purpose section of the QI project page. Moreover, I have sometimes considered making a "feature matrix" page comparing the three assessment programs on a number of points highlighting the difference, like minimum resolution, but I have never come as far as actually doing it. --Slaunger (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was the middle of the night for a lot of people (like me). You are being quite dickish here. --Dschwen (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I apologise if it seems that way. Looking at the responses from the start, the question is more 'why the hell haven't I just given up and left like everyone else in my situation would' and as an editor and artist who doesn't want to just give up completely and take my talent to deviant art or some other site, then it may indeed seem that my efforts to get things improved despite the continual discouragement are interrupting people's sleep in a metaphorical manner.
Slaunger, I think the first step to learning anything at all is to admit you're an idiot, I certainly am, I'll say so till the day I die. It's when people join the retard generation of 'self esteem' where they believe that thinking you can do everything and thinking you know everything can actually equate to any kind of real world advancement that are the real fools. Look, I may be an idiot, I know I am, but looking at the project page there is no mention at all of valued images. I support your proposal which matches mine as well, and want to know why the project page can't be improved. Naturally if we go do it ourselves, people would be like 'oh my god what happened to the page it looks different, I better revert it really fast before I have the chance to stop and consider if it is an improvement or not'. If there are two or three like that, improvement is doomed for all time. I have often seen that done by people who refuse, under pain of death, to explain why the edits in question are not an actual improvement, and just go by the number of people who had a spash of cold water on the face when they saw the different look to the page. We must be vigilant and discuss, and find out who opposes the improvement, and politely ask why first. Penyulap ☏ 00:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it is so difficult to get a better formulation õf the purpose section on the QIC project page, if you get consensus for an updated text here first. I would propose to copy the present purpose section, the section from the COM:VI, and then draft a proposal, which is a merge of the two and present it here and ask for opinions. It should be relatively easy as it is not a change to existing guidelines we are discussing, merely a refactoring of a specific section to ease navigation and understanding for newcomers to Commons media assessement projects. So I think that in general, instead of complaining, if you make a constructive proposal you will see users are not so hostile as you have perceived until now. If you are a little patient and willing to invest a little time it is actually not so difficult . --Slaunger (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I figure there is about as much chance of me drafting anything as there is of someone else doing it, or probably less, considering I'm no idiot, and past experience has proven that my suggestions are harshly received. Penyulap ☏ 21:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean to get no review? Pushing back to the top allowed?

I am realtively new here. Some of my photos got no reviews up to now. It's OK, because not every photo attracts a reviewer who is currently visiting the candidate's page. What does it formaly mean to get no review? Photo is not good enough for QI? Photo has no relevancy for Wiki* projects? It is allowed to submit a photo (later) again to push it back to top and increase the possibility for a review? Thanks for the answers. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tuxyso,
It is very simple, very frequent and usual too, for many reasons, not only regarding the picture itself, and his quality. An unassessed picture is...an unassessed picture, and nothing special happens. It is tagged in a category of unassessed QI candidate pictures and all is OK.
Yes, it is allowed to submit the photo again, later, for a new QI candidacy. So did I many times, and many of other users too. As for myself, I think that, as a courtesy, it is fair to indicate that it is a re-nomination, but it is not a mandatory, and we are very few to give this information in the QIC page. Anyway, you can find elements of the previous nomination in the file description page of the picture, when you open it for the review.
I hope you've got now a sufficient answer. Please ask for further informations if needed. Regards, --Jebulon (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your in detail information. After how many days is re-nomination allowed? The photos disappear automatically after 8 days, right? Is it a good point in time for re-nomination? --Tuxyso (talk) 07:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. There is no rule nor delay for re-nomination.--Jebulon (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to leave it a few months, but there's nothing wrong with renominating. Just be careful you don't renominate something which is already on the page. I do usually make an effort to review all noms, but not been feeling like it this past week or so. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aaron Palushaj - Hamilton Bulldogs - 2012-11-09.jpg

Recently promoted image was today downscaled by the author and is now below required 2 megapixels. --Ivar (talk) 11:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will review all mages and remove the tags when I'm done with downscalling. Sorry for the bother, I've been instructed after uploading and nominating. Have a nice day, Letartean (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kriterien für die Auszeichnung „Qualitätsfoto“

Hallo miteinander, zunächst bitte ich um Entschuldigung, dass mein Englisch nicht ausreicht, präzise auszudrücken, was ich sagen oder fragen will. Mir fällt zunehmend auf, dass bei den „Quality images“ viele Bilder kandidieren bzw. zur Auszeichnung vorgeschlagen werden, die in enzyklopädischer Hinsicht meines Erachtens absolut nichts aussagen. Als Beispiel nenne ich die leicht überbelichtete Aufnahme eines wohl neueren Kirchenfensters, in dem außer einem Ornament nichts zu sehen ist. Wo liegt der Sinn eines solchen Fotos? Sollte dieses Fenster das Werk eines noch lebenden Künstlers sein, wäre überdies zu klären, ob er mit der Veröffentlichung unter CC-Lizenz einverstanden ist. Immer häufiger sind unter den Quality-image-Bewerbungen mehr oder minder gelungene Urlaubsfotos von Kindern mit Tieren usw. zu sehen, die zum Teil sogar schön, aber für eine Enzyklopädie unbedeutend sind. Und mit ein bisschen Glück erhalten sie das erhoffte Prädikat. Andererseits werden mitunter Bilder mit hohem dokumentarischem Wert wegen kleinster fotografischer Mängel wie z. B. sogenannten CAs oder Halos, vermeintlich zu engem Zuschnitt oder leichter perspektivischer Verzerrungen „abgeschmettert“ oder zumindest ignoriert. – Ein offizielles Gremium zur Bewertung der Bilder gibt es meines Wissens nicht. Deshalb bitte ich alle, die hier ihr Urteil abgeben, einerseits gut oder gar hervorragend gestaltete Fotos nicht wegen kleinster technischer Mängel abzuwerten und andererseits völlig konfuse Aufnahmen, die zwar scharf und halbwegs gut belichtet sind, nicht kritiklos „durchzuwinken“. Schließlich auch noch eine Bitte an die Bewerber: Überlegt Euch, ob Euer Foto geeignet ist oder wäre, einen Wikipedia-Artikel zu bebildern oder zumindest Betrachter zu erfreuen. Herzliche Grüße -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my German is not good enough to give a lenghty reply in German. Hope you can decipher my reply. But good questions. First of all, the scope of Commons is not only to supply images to the Wikipedias. Commons also serves as a media repository for other Wikimedia projects, and the entire world actually. In a nutshell the media files on Commons shall all have informational and/or educational value (encyclopedic value is obviously also informational and educational value). This is all described in Commons:Projektrahmen. So we are looking for a broader span of media files than only those useful for an encyklopedia. That said, it appears that some of the examples you describe may have limited value for Commons. The quality images project has a lot of emphasis on technique and relatively little emphasis on informational/educational value. But there are other image assessment projects on Commons. We have Commons:Wertvolle Bilder, which focuses finding the most valued images within a specific scope and less so on the technical quality. Finally, we have Commons:Exzellente Bilder, which has emphasis on both value, technique and "wow". --Slaunger (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lothar, Commons ist nicht nur zur Bebilderung von Enzyklopädien gedacht. Commons ist der Medienpool aller Wikimediaprojekte und allgemein der Pool freier Medien. Wikipedia(s) sind ein wichtiger Bestandteil aber nicht alles. Ich habe sehr viele Bilder auf Wikiversity eingebunden, die sind für Wikipedia absolut ungeeignet. Beispiel: https://de.wikiversity.org/wiki/Kurs:Photoshop_Einzell%C3%B6sungen/Fahrzeuge_fotografieren --Ralf Roleček 09:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Es ging mir nicht nur um den dokumentarischen oder enzyklopädischen Wert der zu beurteilenden Bilder, sondern auch darum, dass manche gut gestalteten Fotos wegen kleinster technischer Mängel abgewertet werden und in Bezug auf Gestaltung Durchschnittliches großes Lob erfährt. Dies betrifft nicht nur Aufnahmen von Fahrzeugen, die ich vorwiegend hier vorstelle oder vorstellte, sondern auch andere Motive. Kürzlich war ich überrascht, dass meine Detailaufnahme vom Hambacher Schloss bei „Wiki Loves Monuments“ auf einem vorderen Platz eingestuft wurde; hier aber fällt dasselbe Bild als absolut unbrauchbar durch. So objektiv ist die Bewertung! Aber was soll's! Das Ganze ist eben nur ein Spiel. Bloß frage ich mich wieder einmal, welchen Sinn es hat, die kostbare Zeit darauf zu verschwenden. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unter den WLM-12 Gewinnerbildern für Deutschland sind aber *sehr* viele, die nicht einmal QI-Standards genügen (einschließlich des Erstplatzierten). Da frage ich mich doch, wer schon eher was dafür kann: das QI-Projekt auf Commons und die dort aktiven Benutzer, oder doch eher die "hochprofessionelle" deutsche Jury? - A.Savin 19:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gut, über das WLM-Gewinnerbild auf Platz 1 staunte ich auch; denn die Schärfe lässt tatsächlich zu wünschen übrig. Andererseits ist es – was Gestaltung und Farbe betrifft – sehr schön anzuschauen. Und schließlich ist eine absolut objektive Bewertung fast unmöglich, wenn ungewollt so viel persönliches Empfinden mitspielt wie bei der Beurteilung von Bildern. Trotzdem frage ich, was wohl dazu führte, dass beispielsweise dieses Foto eines Porsche unwidersprochen als Commons-Qualitätsbild eingestuft wurde. War es die Überbelichtung (insbesondere des Vorderwagens) oder der zum Fahrzeug passende Hintergrund? Zu Letzterem: Zwei meiner aktuell kandidierenden Fotos – die Vincent und der BMW Turbo – wurden unter anderem wegen eines störenden Hintergrunds abqualifiziert. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wie man es schon dem Wortlaut entnehmen kann: "un-widersprochen" heißt schlichtweg, dass niemand widersprochen hat. Wenn also jemand ein Bild promotet und niemand innerhalb 2-3 Tage dem widerspricht, ist das Bild QI. Jeder ist willkommen, sich an den Reviews zu beteiligen und ggf. auch das ein oder andere Review kritisch zu beäugen. So läuft das hier nunmal. Und meiner Erfahrung nach funktioniert das ganz gut, es kommt kaum vor, dass ein qualitativ schlechtes Bild QI Siegel erhält. - A.Savin 21:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dazu kommt, dass ich den WLM-Wettbewerb nicht wirklich als Fotowettbewerb im eigentlichen Sinne bezeichnen würde. Das sind einfach zwei paar Stiefel, die weder ineinander verzahnt sind noch aufeinander aufbauen. --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
„So läuft das hier nun mal.“ Das ist die Erkenntnis, die auch ich seit einiger Zeit habe und was bedeutet, dass es mehr oder minder vom Glück oder Zufall abhängt, wie ein Bild bewertet wird. Inwieweit vielleicht sogar Sympathie oder Antipathie gegenüber dem Bewerber mitspielen, will ich nicht zu erörtern versuchen, denn ich will niemandem Unrecht tun. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No notifications, 2012-11-25

QICbot removed promotions/declines today as is proper, but failed to edit the file pages or notify users. I have undone the edits to restore the old version, and will notify the bot's owner. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I already missed them. Kind regards -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have it at the end of every month last time, so we have now. QIC bot failed to save the page Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 2012 probably due to their large size (currently about 700 KB). Unless a part of the page will be archived elsewhere, we can wait for the promotions until December 1. - A.Savin 17:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I haven't made the correlation with the month end. We did have a large page problem before,bt it was not in an archive, but it was one of the subject galleries. Looking at the QIC bot logs (http://bots.wmflabs.org/~dschwen/qicbot/Sun_Nov_25_12:01:01_UTC_2012.txt) the reason for failure is given as "Edit conflict". And it was actually trying to access one of the subject galleries. I'm not sure if the error message given by pywikipediabot is reliable. So maybe one of the subject gallery pages got too large again. I'm at the airport right now, about to go to a week long conference, but I might have to invest some time in automatic subject gallery page archival :-(. --Dschwen (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Special:Contributions/QICbot shows the bot visited the archive page twice with the exact same edit.
(show/hide) 06:46, 25 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+15,955)‎ . . m Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 2012 ‎ (archive old nominations)
(show/hide) 05:08, 25 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+15,955)‎ . . m Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 2012 ‎ (archive old nominations)
No idea yet why that is. --Dschwen (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I assume because I undid it once in between. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So the bot reverted you out of spite? ;-) No, that was the only page that was edited twice, it would take a whole separate bot run to do that, and the bot is only called once in 24h. --Dschwen (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It worked today. --Dschwen (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed that I archived the page yesterday. Same story as we had one month ago. Believe it or not... - A.Savin 21:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe you. But I'm still confused why this caused the bot to behave as it did. Thanks for archiving the archive :-P. --Dschwen (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This image is NOT a Quality image.

Sorry, but who can read the letters QI in this usual size of this image? --W like wiki (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

→ better this way. --W like wiki (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates/Archive_1&oldid=148483142"