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.


[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 beide Geokoordinaten , da (15.4. hochgeladen; Canon GPS tag version fehlt nur Cameralocation und hier (abseits von Denkmal) fehlt ebenfalls die Cameralocation (12.3. hochgeladen; Canon GPS tag version und zur Abwechslung ist es hier (8.3. hochgeladen; Canon GPS tag version 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)

Copyvio - external source, no license.[edit]

I am confused about this edit replacing "{{No license since|month=November|day=13|year=2014}}" with "{{Copyvio|external source, no license. --[[User:Krdbot|Krdbot]] 15:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)}}" which lead to immediate deletion. Usually we allow people 7 days to provide license after they have been notified. --Jarekt (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jarekt. It was tried yesterday to reduce the number of files in the "No license since" daily category for which obviously no permission is achievable, by tagging them a copyvio and get rid of them immediately, being able to spent a part of the won time on the files which might need help.
Affected habe been those files which had no license _and_ also an external source, i.e. no permission regardless which license the uploader could have chosen, with the small drawback that pd-old, pd-textlogo, etc. had to be catched by the copyvio processing admin.
Although I think the experiment was a plain success, I agree that this should be discussed somewhere before activated in production mode. --Krd 13:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I am all for more automatic processes, but once user is alerted and told that ha has 7 days to straighten things out we should give him this time. For example in case of the file I noticed it, the user did not add a license template but used a sentence phrase used by the website to explain the license which was very close to {{Attribution}}. See Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#.7B.7BAttribution.7D.7D_with_constraints. No license and external source does not mean that it is a copyvio. --Jarekt (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
By the way, every few days I run a manual procedure:
  1. Use CatScan3 to find files uploaded in last 7 days without a license.
  2. I copy them to User:Jarekt/a and use VisualFileChanges to add {{No license since}} with a friendly note inviting people to "check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page" if they are confused.
You can see in Category:Media without a license the days I run it because there are much more files in "No license since" daily category. It would be easier if this process could be automatically run daily. --Jarekt (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
@Jarekt: The issue I see is that quite a number of copyvios are imported, and not deleted for days, altough it seems easy to tag and delete them speedily. I don't understand that when so many people shout about minor copyright issues. We need to do something. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The number of pending copyvios is reduced, that's good. But the bot needs to inform the uploader. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Is there any example case where it did not? --Krd 15:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure how that is related to the problem of no licenses at all, that I often work on. The bad file transfers are a separate issue, unless they end up with no valid license templates. My post was only meant to improve the procedure of the one narrow process. --Jarekt (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Haemoglobin molecule.png[edit]

User Shriya Pai: I don't know how to delete the upload. So please tell me how to do it or will it get deleted automatically? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shriya Pai (talk • contribs)

I deleted the file. --Krd 16:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 15:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

No signature[edit]

@Krd: Not sure if you're not adding a signature on purpose.[3] However, it also means there is no timestamp. Would you be open to amending your signature to omit the link to the bot's userpage? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I get you right. Is adding as signature after {{subst:copyvionote|...}} sufficient? If yes, this is changed now accordingly. --Krd 16:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah that's fine. I just don't want to have to go into the history to see who made the warning and (especially) when. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)