From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
< Commons:Bots(Redirected from Commons:BRFA)
Jump to: navigation, search
This project page in other languages:

English | 日本語 | +/−

Shortcut: COM:BRFA

Bot policy and list · Requests to operate a bot · Requests for work to be done by a bot · Changes to allow localization  · Requests for batch uploads

If you want to run a bot on Commons, you must get permission first. To do so, file a request following the instructions below.

Please read Commons:Bots before making a request for bot permission.

Requests made on this page are automatically transcluded in Commons:Requests and votes for wider comment.

Requests for permission to run a bot[edit]

Before making a bot request, please read the new version of the Commons:Bots page. Read Commons:Bots#Information on bots and make sure you have added the required details to the bot's page. A good example can be found here.

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Bots/Archive.

Any user may comment on the merits of the request to run a bot. Please give reasons, as that makes it easier for the closing bureaucrat. Read Commons:Bots before commenting.

Tulsibot (talk · contribs)[edit]

Operator: Tulsi Bhagat (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Checking recently uploaded files and reporting if any problem in the image's description.

Automatic or manually assisted: Manually assisted

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): daily

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 30/min

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): y

Programming language(s): Python

-- Tulsi Bhagat (Talk) 09:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


Pictogram voting question.svg Question What are the reports used for, who is processing them in which way? What in the exact problem of e.g. File:!Mein Coughlin.jpg listed in the report, and by which critera was it detected? --Krd 12:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Krd: The reports are used for informing about the errors found on uploaded files. Filbot is processing them with a fake license. The exact problem of e.g. File:!Mein Coughlin.jpg is that it has a fake license: Template:cc-by-2.0. It was detected while using bot and the reports observed. Thank you -- Tulsi Bhagat (Talk) 15:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't get that. How in detail do you detect that the license is fake? --Krd 15:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Why is File:!Mein Coughlin.jpg tagged exactly? Which script do you use? And please remove the file from your signature. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
@Krd: I detect that license is fake by running my Tulsibot using script. This script helps in checking recently uploaded files, a file description and other problems in the image's description. Thank you -- Tulsi Bhagat (Talk) 17:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what is intended for, but either it's severely broken or you are using is wrong. Example: File:! Schleswig-Holstein meerumschlungen 02.jpg was neither recently uploaded nor are there any problems at all. Also you did not provide any reasoning which Commons procedure you intended task is helpful for. Please advise in detail. Thank you. --Krd 07:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose He just runs which everyone with pywikibot can run. The user has a bad understanding about licenses (see his deleted uploads). I also thinks he isn't experienced enough to operate a bot here on commons. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: sorry! As, I am windows pywikibot core user. I use script. It has mentioned above that this script helps in checking recently uploaded files, a file description and other problems in the image's description.-- Tulsi Bhagat (Talk) 17:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: I can operate and handle my bot here on commons. If else any mistakes i will responsible for it and you may block my bot for a while. -- Tulsi Bhagat (Talk) 17:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: Hi! sir, I want to say that When i started contributing for the first time here on commons and at that time the images was uploaded by me. I was not aware of rules, copyrights or licenses but now i am aware and well known of copyrights or licenses rules. Thank you -- Tulsi Bhagat (Talk) 18:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: and @Krd: I think Tulsi Bhagat should given a chance to prove himself by doing trial edits using bot within a short period of time atleast 1 or 2 days. Thank you Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 08:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Tulsi Bhagat has uploaded a lot of copyvios, i don't feel comfortable that he runs a copyvio-finder bot. Running is not hard, but maintaining it is hard. I don't believe that Tulsi Bhagat has the necessary code skills to maintain this script (at least a basic understanding of COM:L is required, but i fail to see that too). --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter:sir, i request you to close this disscusion; I'll right back after 2 or 3 weeks. Thank you Tulsi Bhagat (Talk) 15:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

WMPL GLAM Bot (talk · contribs)[edit]

Operator: Yarl (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: file upload

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): when requested

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): hard to say, depends on file size

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Java, custom softwate for each upload, here's first one

Yarl 19:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


  • Tiny test run for you. Yarl 19:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
    • In the test run I see accession numbers quoted on the image page, but I can only see a match to this number at the source website when I examine the photo link embedded in the HTML rather than being visible on the page. Is this a true accession number for the archived photograph, or is it a potentially transient identity for the website digital image? -- (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
      • @ Numbers like "000925n" are their inventory number. Numbers in their URL path (like "84") are probably made due to some kind of technical limitations. Yarl 19:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    • By the way, though there is no consensus on format, putting the accession number in brackets in the filename is not my personal preference due to potential problems with searches and queries on the title. Maybe you could consider the more simple <collection abbreviation><identity> at the end of the name like "<title> AMU000926n"? -- (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Did the original author release these under the CC license? Or is the GLAM somehow claiming copyright and authority to license? --99of9 (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    • @99of9: These files are under CC license, see footer. Yarl 19:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
      • @Yarl: the footer CC appears to apply to "design and implementation" (as opposed to the picture) if my google translate is correct. But you haven't actually answered my question - assuming you are correct about CC, who assigned the license? --99of9 (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
        • @99of9:: They (Józef Burszta Digital Archives), take a look at this page, Google Translate is good enough to understand. Yarl 12:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
          • @Yarl: So as I understand it, the photographer Andrzej Brencz donated a hard copy or photonegative to Józef Burszta (or the archive bearing his name), and it was later scanned and digitized in 2014? Usually a donation like that does not transfer copyright (but in some cases it is part of the contract). Is there evidence somewhere that this copyright was transferred at the time of donation, to entitle JBDA to release it under a free license? --99of9 (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
            • @99of9:: All photos are taken by employees and doctoral students of Adam Mickiewicz University during academic research, so their work is owned by university. JBDA is part of university archives, so situation is clear. More information about project is here (in Polish). Yarl 19:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
              • @Yarl: At my university, and most others I know, students retain the intellectual property over all of their work. Just giving a copy to the archives does not invalidate that. So the situation at JBDA is very unclear to me. --99of9 (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
                • @99of9: From what I know, everything is legally OK. They will send, however, clarification to OTRS. Yarl 22:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
                  • Ok, please pass on to them the specific concern about whether they own the intellectual property behind the photograph, not just a hard copy of the photograph itself. That's what will determine whether they should assert that they are the copyright owner. --99of9 (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • We do have bots with multiple operators for pragmatic reasons of maintenance and it is unusual to have a single bot account for indefinite multiple programmes of a Chapter; in fact I think this would be the first one on Commons based on User:Fæ/Userlist#bots, though one may be a less active account.
Other bots devoted to uploads are more often either associated with one operator or a single programme/archive for a donating organization. In this way there is long term accountability and there is more likely to be consistency in approach along with persistent improvement. I am also concerned that having "official Chapter bots" may discourage volunteers who do similar projects in the same country as the Chapter from working on their own "non-Chapter" bots as they might feel they need the Chapter's permission or be obliged to use the group account so that the Chapter gets political credit for future funding applications.
Would it damage anything if the scope of this bot were changed so that it became more specific than being potentially operated by anyone associated with a WMPL project? -- (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Right, so since some time we have official paid GLAM coordinator in WMPL and my task, as a volounteer, is to upload obtained data. I don't want to do it using private bot (YarluFileBot), because it doesn't look professional in my opinion. I also don't want to take attribution, because most of work on upload (meetings, agreements) is done by WMPL employee. Regarding your concerns about bot ownage: I will own this account, no plans to change it. Yarl 19:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Please use language templates for Depicted place and Photographer fields. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    • @EugeneZelenko: By language templates you mean templates like {{en|text}}? Depicted place is indeed in Polish, so I'll add it, but photographer is just a name. It still needs lang. template? Just asking, because I've never seen combination like this. Yarl 19:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
      • In theory other Latin-based languages may use transliteration which could be different from Polish original, not talking about other scripts. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It'll be good idea to add template which will request for human help with categorization. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, good point. Yarl 19:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @99of9, EugeneZelenko, : Do you have more concerns guys? Just to be sure. Yarl 21:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
    What is conclusion about language templates? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
    No problem, can be added. I'll run second test run in a few days if needed. Yarl 22:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding legal issues: The archive has agreements with authors or their heirs to submit works on CC BY-SA 3.0 or later. They have submitted samples of such agreements. They also sent to OTRS their own agreement with complete list of files for which it is applicable. See (those who have access): [1]. Polimerek (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Polimerek: What the ticket confirms exactly? I don't speak this language, but i can't find something like CC-BY in the ticket. Does not looks like COM:CONSENT for me. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
All documents (signed scans) are in pdf-s or zipped files attached to the E-mails. Agreement is in first and last E-mail (OTRS_UAM.pdf), the lists of works are attached in zipped files in the last E-mail. What do you want more? Polimerek (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Polimerek: I have overlooked the attachment, it never hurts to ask :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
When you say "The archive has agreements with authors or their heirs to submit works on CC BY-SA 3.0", where did you get that information from, is it in one of the documents? Also, "They have submitted samples of such agreements." which zip file has a sample agreement in it? (I also don't speak Polish, so it is hard for me to locate this.) --99of9 (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Zip files contains only list of files and objects with information who was author and/or donator, however they sent me directly several samples of agreements with authors and their heirs. They contain a clause that they grant copyrights to the University archive under condition that archive will publish it under CC BY-SA 3.0 PL license. The archive already did it already on their own page. Our GLAM coordinator have seen all these agreements in real. Agreements between Archive and authors/heirs cannot be made public as they contain personal data (home addresses etc.) and some donators (heirs of the authors) prefer to stay anonymous. Polimerek (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
@99of9: To clarify: WMPL was provided by JBDA with 1. The standard localised Polish consent statement (in the OTRS_UAM.pdf file) 2. Zip files mentioned by Polimerek: For each creator of images, an individual list of files released on a BY-SA license (for example, see file named "Linette Bogusław" for a 34-page-long list of images to which the BY-SA license and OTRS agreement applies); and 3. Scans of standardised license agreements the Adam Mickiewicz University (parent institution of the JBDA) had signed with listed image creators or their inheritors (one sample for creator agreement, another for inheritor agreement) fulfilling all the CC-BY-SA 3.0 PL and compatible license requirements. These have been sent for verification to Polimerek, an OTRS pl operator - and have been successfully verified (I am not an OTRS operator, but being the "WMPL employee" mentioned by Yarl I've been communicating with JBDA and have also laid eyes on this paperwork). So we've got a full set of JBDA permissions, as Polimerek stated above. --Marta Malina Moraczewska (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The OTRS template should be used on the file description page. Apart from that, i have no further concerns. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
@Yarl: Can you setup a custom license template that describes or lists the released images as best as possible, and use that with the uploads? See Category:Custom license tags with OTRS permission for examples. --Krd 17:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Commons fair use upload bot (talk · contribs)[edit]

Operator: (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

Files that are subject to deletion requests or other deletion processes which may be suitable to remain hosted on other Wikimedia projects (at this time localization is set up for the English Wikipedia, English Wikisource and the Estonian Wikipedia) may use the {{Fair use delete}} or {{PD-US-1923-abroad-delete}} templates so that the bot can perform the localization. When the bot is done localizing, the template is swapped to a speedy delete template.

Note that the bot only localizes images when a current administrator has added the relevant template. See the procedure description on the bot user page.

This bot was successfully running from 2012 through to summer 2014 on the Toolserver. In migrating I have been rewriting the code from mwclient to Pywikibot and have set up the service on labs under commonsfairuseupload. The source code can be found at

Automatic or manually assisted:


Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run):

Hourly run, executed on WMFlabs.

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute):

When the bot was running previously, there was an average of a handful in a day. There is no need for this to be a fast bot and considering what it does (linear local downloads), I would expect a practical maximum of about 2 images processed in a minute.

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Python, Pywikibot core.

(talk) 12:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


  • The rewrite to Pywikibot is happening now, so I would expect the bot to remain in trials/testing for a couple more weeks depending on how much wiki-time I find to spend completing the migration. I have put a notice on COM:AN for comment, as the bot is focused on supporting admins who are responsible for assessing if an image is suitable for localization. -- (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
See also enwiki request in processxaosflux Talk 14:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Seems useful. Let us know when you have done some trials. --99of9 (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I've been delayed on revisiting the code, mainly due to some disillusionment as a volunteer. However I expect to get this running in March and we should be able to point to some tests at that time. -- (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • , is this on the back burner then? If so, that is a pity because it would have been a very useful service. Green Giant (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I have a lot on in real life, and I confess to being disillusioned that a Commons admin can make legal threats against me and no action was taken. Considering the false and stupid allegations made about me on Commons and OTRS by certain people as part of the fracas around Russavia, I am disappointed that not a single apology has been forthcoming for publicly smearing my character. With time to reflect I was more damaged by this than I expected.
I still intend to implement and test out the FUUB, but I am prioritizing real life urgent matters and giving myself time to feel happier about this project before I do. When I return I shall probably run another RFA, operating tools like FUUB is severely hampered if I cannot delete or restore files myself, as this is central as to why they are needed. If I get rejected again, maybe it's time to move on and leave the project for those that want to run it like a boy's club. -- (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
@: Please advise: Do you prefer to keep this request open until you are ready for test edits, or should we close it for now and reopen it later? Thank you. --Krd 16:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
If it's no hassle I'd rather just leave it open. I have a massive simple logistics commitment for a couple of months, but the fraud case is a mountain of research and distracting because it is disturbingly unpleasant and much more significant than anyone expected. So my volunteer work is little bits and bobs right now and I will probably avoid committing to any bigger stuff over the summer. As I mentioned on en.wp if someone wants to invest their time getting the FUUB running before that, I am happy to leave it. -- (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Dexbot (talk · contribs)[edit]

Operator: Ladsgroup (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Adding {{Information}}

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): one time run

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 60/min

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N

Programming language(s): python

Amir (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


It's another step in metadata clean up (Further discussions). It only fixes when the description is one line and consists more than 5 words. The bot detects language of the description (that's why the description has to be more than 5 words) and adds proper information template. I did ~50 edits for test [2] you can check.

I'd rather we don't make up explicit {{own}} claims if the uploader made no such assertion. File:Denmark-Norway and possessions.png, for example, is clearly not the uploader's own work, but based on a pre-existing blank world map. LX (talk, contribs) 10:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I've looked at the edits. Can you except certain templates? In this edit the bot added only the template to the description, while this template would be on a better place outside the information template. Other issues were found with this edit were the uploader claims another date, however the exif-date aggressor with you thus some weird edge case you can't possibly watch out for (other one same uploader). Same story for this one (1 year and 1 day of). this edit has the same source issue as mentioned by LX, but I don't see how that's fixable. And finally the most important one: this edit. This file was imported from en-wiki and given a "self" template, however the uploader is not the author of the work! This is going to happen with quite some files and is a big error. Some fixes could be to exempt descriptions with a user name (linked either this wiki or cross-wiki) which is not the same as the uploader. And exempt descriptions which say transferred/en wiki etc. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
The source issue is fixable by not making stuff up and instead leaving the source field blank. That will put the files into the maintenance category Files with no machine-readable source, which is where such files belong until they're manually fixed (or deleted, where appropriate). LX (talk, contribs) 13:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@LX, Basvb:For the first issue: I will skip descriptions that consists only template(s). About the EXIF differences: I have no idea how to fix or skip them and IMO corrupted EXIF is not our problem. and about the {{self}} template: I can skip if someone else is mentioned in the text but for other cases I think it's not a problem that should be considered at this level. Honestly I think it's better to mark them with {{own}} because it makes these data a machine-processable data and it will be easier to find errors i.e. Using {{self}} is an error but when we mark them with {{own}}, errors are become easier to find, Specially in the future when new system of metadata is being used Amir (talk) 13:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that a self license should hold some form of own work from a Wikimedian (could also be an imported file from another project). I forgot to say in my last reaction that I really like your language determination, that seems to work well. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 13:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Amir, what are you using for language detection? --Dschwen (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dschwen: Hey, I use langdetect and accept the result if the number is more than 90% (usually it's less 70% or more than 99.999%). Amir (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If there are no further issues, I suggest that we close this request as successful. --99of9 (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I stand by my objection against making up source and authorship claims when no such claims were made by the uploader, which the bot is still doing. (In the linked example, from looking at the user's other uploads, it's probably a correct assumption, but the bot seems to just be guessing blindly.) I don't see how finding errors are made any easier by having to dig through the file description's page history to see that the uploader never actually claimed what we now claim about these files. If you want to make errors obvious, make it clear that these are assumptions made by a nonthinking entity. ("Source: No machine readable source provided. Own work assumed based on copyright claims." / "Author: No machine readable author provided. User:Example assumed based on copyright claims.") LX (talk, contribs) 22:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@LX: Help me understand the issue a bit more. The previous version of that file had {{self}}, which states "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it..." Isn't that a strong statement of both authorship and source? --99of9 (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
No, it is not. There are several reasons why someone who is not the author may be the copyright holder: inheritance, works made for hire and copyright transfer come to mind. A person who takes a work for which the copyright has expired and makes copyrightable modifications to it would also be the sole copyright holder but not the sole author of the resulting work. Also, while it's demonstrably far from a guarantee that people won't wilfully misspeak, requiring users to assert that they are the author, that they are uploading their own work, and that they are the copyright holder has certain practical benefits. It's harder for copyright violators to feign ignorance and claim that they simply didn't understand that at least one of the three claims were false, and it gives the truly ignorant three different paths to enlightenment. As a consequence, it provides a little more security for reusers. I assume it's for these reasons that Commons:Licensing#License information states that author/creator of each media file must be provided on every file description and that "A generic license template which implies that the uploader is the copyright holder (e.g. {{PD-self}}) is no substitution for this requirement." (Original emphasis as used in the policy.) LX (talk, contribs) 01:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok thanks, I now understand which angle you are working. I agree this will cause trouble when owner!=author. I'm not sure I agree that requiring a further assertion of authorship is realistic now for long-uploaded files with long-gone uploaders. In those cases, either a bot cleans up based on (usually reasonable) assumptions, humans clean up one-by-one based on (better?) assumptions, we leave messy forever, or we delete. I take it you favour one of the middle two options? --99of9 (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with the first option as long as the assumptions are clearly identified as such, ideally using templates for automatic categorisation and translation. That not only benefits human readers, but it also helps future, more specialised bot tasks, human cleanup efforts and (when appropriate) deletion processes. The statement that license templates do not constitute source or authorship information has been explicit in the licensing policy since June 2007, so while it may not be realistic to expect retired users to come back and improve their file descriptions, files (directly) uploaded to Commons after that date without explicit source and authorship information should be considered more problematic than older uploads. Not being able to automatically make such distinctions is, in my opinion, far messier than the current state of affairs. LX (talk, contribs) 07:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ladsgroup: Could you please comment on the objections raised? Thank you. --Krd 17:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It would be good if we have a note added by bot stating "Own Workd (based on license)" (like based on EXIF data; which can be clearly wrong lots of times). I easily add it the code if people agree on this Amir (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that wording would be at all clear to most reusers. I stand by the wording I originally proposed above, but as long as it's done via a template, the wording can be changed and translated, so that's the main thing. LX (talk, contribs) 19:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@LX: Can you create the template? Thanks Amir (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I've created {{Own assumed}} and {{Author assumed}}. They could use a few more translations. LX (talk, contribs) 23:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I switched the first one to use Translate, in order to get more translations. Jean-Fred (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to have worked. Now it just renders as a redlink: Template:Own assumed/i18n/en. LX (talk, contribs) 17:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC) I reverted it. Feel free to redo whatever you tried to do, but please make sure the result is something that's in a usable state. Cheers, LX (talk, contribs) 19:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the overlook (I had made sure it worked in my interface but did not check English) − I fixed it now (phab:T56579 keeps biting me). Jean-Fred (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@LX: I made about 50 edits based on your template. Does it look good? [3] Amir (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It's better, but the authorship information is still made-up, and that should be pointed out as well. Please use {{Author assumed}} as well. Thanks, LX (talk, contribs) 20:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
@LX: Made another 50 edits. [4] Is it good now? Amir (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Amir! Yes, based on the sample I looked at, I have no objections at this point. Thanks, LX (talk, contribs) 18:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks fine for me too. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Again then, if there are no further objections, I suggest we close this request as successful. --99of9 (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)