User talk:Fæ

I am completely snowed under. Please be patient as I might be travelling or have to put other matters as a priority, and would find it tricky to keep an eye on messages. I normally reply within a day and I will be notified by email if this page changes. If you wish to contact me about something other than Wikimedia Commons, or any matter of a confidential or private nature, please use this link to email me.

As a well known openly super gay Wikimedian this user page is a safe space for LGBT topics. If you cannot cope with gay pink bunny boys, then you may want to move along.

2010 2011 2012 2013 Pieter Kuiper Anonymous

	Pending tasks for Fæ:	edit this list - add to watchlist - purge
	Repair Geograph templates in line with WSC's suggestions #Geograph problem raised: Nov 2012 Consider WSC's request on under-categorized images #Nuther Geograph problem raised: Nov 2012 Commons:Batch_uploading/Los_Angeles_County_Museum_of_Public_Art (All set bar modest improvements, just waiting for bot flag) Commons:Batch uploading/Weather maps using Noaabot Category:Trainz railroad simulators - review and help out with copyright and format suggestions.

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

{{delete}} DescriptionFæ 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 28 April 2005, 07:45:33 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
{{delete}} DescriptionFæ Street of Reeperbahn in district of St Pauli, Hamburg, Germany. Date 28 April 2005, 07:45:33 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)
              • Needless to say that I don't hurry you. =) Ain92 (talk) 15:11, 5 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)

• BU4260 is in both lists, so it's reasonable to unite them. Ain92 (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Fae's upload of the month

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

File:Native pink flower.jpg

• Commons:Deletion_requests/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

• Commons:Deletion_requests/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)

• Commented. --Fæ (talk) 08:20, 11 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)

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)

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)

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)