User talk:Krdbot

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Filing cabinet icon.svg

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day. For the archive overview, see archive.

Cong, Fauxhaux, ponyhawk[edit]

Hallo! Habe gesehen, Du bist Deutsch, also brauch ich nur weiterzuschreiben. Ich bin neu hier und schreibe derzeit an einem Artikel, einer Auflistung von Frisuren. Das hochladender Bilder entstand mit dem Willen, die Auflistung noch zu verbessern und jetzt da die Bilder von ihnen mit einigen Löschungen bearbeitet wurden, frage ich mich natürlich, wo ich hätte erkennen können, ob diese gegen Rechte verstoßen. Über eine Antwort zu den einzelnen Bilder wäre ich schon verbunden, um exemplarisch zu verstehen, wie aus deren Quellen sichtbar ist, ob man bei Verwendung Rechte verletzt oder nicht. --BuschBracke (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hallo BuschBracke. Auf Wikimedia Commons und in der Wikipedia können nur Bilder genutzt werden, die vom Urheber oder Rechteinhaber unter eine freie Lizenz gestellt wurden. Bitte lies zunächst Commons:Lizenzen und melde Dich gern wieder, wenn Du dazu Fragen hast. Gruß… --Krd 16:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

[1], [2]. -- Bwag (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Bwag. Ich hatte gestern in Absprache mit AleXXw das Skript ohne Editwarcheck laufen lassen, da einige Edits nochmal nachgeholt werden sollten. Dass da auch 2 Fehltreffer bzgl. Deiner Edits zwischen waren, haben wir offenbar übersehen. Ich hab beide nun zurückgesetzt, und nochmal geprüft, dass der Rest in Ordnung war. Ich denke, was müsste so passen. Danke für den Hinweis, bitte entschuldige das Versehen. Gruß… --Krd 03:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, deine 2 hatte ich übersehen, es ist eigentlich um die da gegangen... LG --AleXXw 07:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Passt schon! Aber was anderes. Um etwas rationeller hier zu werken, die Frage ob der Bot nicht auch gleich in einem „Arbeitsschritt“ die EXIF-Geoordinaten einfügen könnte. Auch in Anbetracht, dass der andere Bot diesbezüglich „oft schläft“ oder überhaupt nicht aktiv ist. -- Bwag (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Man kann das versuchen, jedoch ist das Auswerten von Exif-Daten anstrengend, da dort unterschiedliche Formate sowohl für die Daten als auch für die Schlüsselwörter verwendet werden. Hast Du ein oder zwei Beispiele für mich, wo die Daten fehlen? --Krd 08:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Beispielsweise fehlen hier (11.3. hochgeladen; Canon GPS tag version 0.0.3.2) beide Geokoordinaten , da (15.4. hochgeladen; Canon GPS tag version 0.0.3.2) fehlt nur Cameralocation und hier (abseits von Denkmal) fehlt ebenfalls die Cameralocation (12.3. hochgeladen; Canon GPS tag version 0.0.3.2) und zur Abwechslung ist es hier (8.3. hochgeladen; Canon GPS tag version 0.0.3.2) umgekehrt. Cameralocation vorhanden, jedoch fehlt die Objektlocation. -- Bwag (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Ich würde spontan vermuten, dass die Object Location vom Bot nur bei Bildern eingetragen wird, die in den Denkmallisten verwendet werden, nicht jedoch generell bei allen, die auf Commons die zugehörige Denkmalvorlage tragen. Das wäre dann auf jeden Fall schonmal eine Funktion, die nachgerüstet werden sollte. Ich schau mir das an, das wird aber etwas dauern. --Krd 10:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
So wie es aussieht ist der Programmcode da, aber deaktiviert, wegen: difflink. Da müsste man also nochmal in Ruhe drüber nachdenken. --Krd 11:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Too much false positives from Kdrbot![edit]

I'm following very closely the editions of the bot, and I reverted several editions that I consider false positives, specially of logos bellow the COM:TOO or Coat of arms.

The problem is not the simplicity of the logos (yes, a bot can't know them), but the time interval between the upload and the tagging for Speedy. This is specially true with this edition of this coat of arms, in less than 2 minutes after the upload!!!

In this and the other cases, the file have the template {{Uwlsubst}}, that indicates the uplioader have 7 days to fix the license. Then, I think the job to detect copyvios 'should not be done by a bot (unless it is very sophosticated). A {{Copyvio}} over a {{Uwlsubst}} is redundant, and is better that a human review these files.

Therefore, I highly reccomend to tweak the bot for the interval between first upload and the tagging for Speedy. Elsewhere, I'll take the case to the Village Pump. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I was asked a few days ago to run this bot more quickly, as is helped a lot to save manual work, so I'm now running it every hour instead of twice per day. Anyway, I'm open to any suggestion. --Krd 13:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I know the bot is very useful. But, is possible to this bot to ignore files uploaded in less than a certain ammount of time, regardless the running times? Tagging for speedy files uploaded too few hour (or minutes in the above case) ago should not be allowed for non-humans, I insist. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course we can do this. Which amount of time do you suggest? --Krd 16:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Short answer: At least 2 hours.
Long answer: You know very well the Commons policies, and therefore, how to determine an appropiate time after the uploads. Here is another case that neither bot should edit any File page. Therefore, one day is very appropiate, but two hours is enough, not less than this. In know you can also improve the heuristical of the algorith that detect copyvios in the bot, in order to reduce the false positives. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I have set the delay to 2 hours now. --Krd 09:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

About File:Logo église orthodoxe.jpg[edit]

Hello,

Last night, around midnight, I uploaded a file whose content is a logo and size is 106x108px (4.69kb). I put it on a page on fr:WP (Église de la Dormition-de-la-Mère-de-Dieu de Marseille). Today, I receive a notification of copyvio, suggesting me to explain it on discussion page of the file. But, though its name remain blue, the file (and its discussion page of course) had disappeared from commons, and even its link had been erased from the page in fr:WP (at 6:42 am). Total blackout!

I note that fr:WP allows logos to be used without licence, provinding their origin is indicated (see Wikipédia:Exceptions au droit d'auteur on fr:WP). So it appears that I could have discussed the deletion request if it were not so expeditive.

Are you sure that the case was so clear, and answer so urgent? Of course I will survive, but the way seems to me slightly negligent.

Sincerly, Fr.Latreille (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the undeletion of the file IRNSS-1D and others[edit]

Hello, I think you have mistaken the file for a copyright violation but the file is freely available on ISRO public website for multiple public use. So, kindly plese undelete the file or please state the violation terms violated if not so.

Hello. The file have been deleted by User:Yann, which you have already contacted. I cannot add any helpful information. --Krd 15:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks for your response and keep helping me and others. Prymshbmg (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Logo BANCOMAT.JPG[edit]

Hi Krdbot, I noted that you have deleted my file. Please note that it is a valid registered trademark filed before the Italian Trademark Office. How can I re-upload the file in correct way? This was the first time that I tried to upload a file, sorry!!!! :)--Nuvola 01 (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nuvola 01. The file was deleted by User:NahidSultan. Please see COM:LIC and COM:OTRS before you reupload. --Krd 16:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Another false positives of Kdrbot[edit]

Once again, Kdrbot tagged for speedy legitime files. I know the bot have a high rate of success, but the rate of false positive is quite high, specially with Public domain or free-licensed files.

Obviously this bot can't determine the actual age of the pictures (it only can be determined by humans), but the bot still tags the files in too short period of time after uploading:

And other several B/W pictures that should be researched before tagging for Speedy in a very short period of time. Remember that the uploaded have up to 7 days to correct the licensing ({{Remove this line and insert a license instead}} have this purpose and a Speeyy tag is redundant in these cases).

You mentioned that the bot is programmed to tag files after two hours, that I think is insufficient. 12 hours should allow the uploaders to fix the licensing. If this problem persist (tags in too short period of time with false positives), I'll leave the case to the Village Pump. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --Krd 17:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)