User talk:ArndBot

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, ArndBot!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Check edit[edit]

Hi Arndt, could you please check this edit? Looks wrong as as is not the date parameter of the information template. Thanks. Raymond 13:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Raymond, thank you for being patient. You are right. It a mistake. So just revert this if you find other cases. --Arnd (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Erroneous operation with {{cite journal}}[edit]

Hello, Arndt! Pay attention, please: the bot works on {{cite journal}} template in an erroneous way. See, please, here. Best wishes, Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC).

Adding date from EXIF when date is blank?[edit]

Arnd, your bot seems to be erroneously adding a date from EXIF when date is blank. This is outside of its approved tasks -- it is only supposed to be adding the EXIF date when it is "see metadata" and similar strings. Here is an example error. —RP88 (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of files having EXIF dates which is not used in date parameter. So i extended the task. I see the problem with this file. What should be done in such a case, how it can be detected? Should we use {{According to EXIF data}}? However, i am sure that such cases are very rarely. Actually, later we could check all Commons files that have dates before the upload date and mark. --Arnd (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, using {{According to EXIF data}} is certainly better than what the bot has done, but even that may not be enough. It is very common for the EXIF date to be wrong in older files. I think it is fine if the bot sees text like "see metadata" and replaced it with the date, since presumably a human verified that the date in the metadata was correct before they added that string. Replacing a blank date with EXIF is very different (and more difficult) task. If I remember correctly, previous requests to do this have actually been rejected because the bot operator didn't have an adequate plan. If you think you have a plan on how to solve this, I think you should file a new bot request to add this task to your bot, rather than just "extending" the task your bot performs. —RP88 (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Pantoja de la Cruz[edit]

No sé como arreglar esa página. ¿Habla usted español?.--Tiberioclaudio99 (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Reading bogus compass information from exif data[edit]

Arnd, ArndBot is currently reading bogus compass information and putting it into the location template. See e.g. here:

The bot should do some sanity checking. I'm not exactly sure how that would look like, but the value 65535 is certainly not valid. --Kabelleger (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Kabelleger. I will add a plausibilty check for the range 0<=x<360. --Arnd (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Adding headings in location[edit]

Can you please see this and this edit. Now it has "Error: Invalid parameters!" --Smooth_O (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Smooth_O, i am aware of this. Actually the bot is not doing wrong but several thousands of files use the {{location}} template with three numerical parameters which is not allowed. I do not know why, but the uploaders thought the third parameter is the altitude which is not implemented. I already addressed this issue at Template talk:Location#Altitude. Depending on the result i will cleanup the effected files. --Arnd (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks for info. --Smooth_O (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Smooth_O, the Bot is now cleaning up the files. --Arnd (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding headings in location - 2[edit]

Hello! I uploaded several geotagged pictures with location, but without heading information (examples: File:Trem do Corcovado – “Schweizerische Centralbahn Hauptwerkstaette • System Riggenbach”.JPG / File:Rosenbauer Panther 8x8 • rechter Sitz, Flughafenfeuerwehr Bremen.JPG). As it seems, they had a heading 0° or 360° in EXIF data, something not intended by me, but apparently added by the ”Panorado Flyer“ tool. Your bot added a heading to the file. IMHO a bot should not make an automated edit adding erroneous information – although there was this data in EXIF.--Geogast (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Geogast, the UploadWizad is currently also adding the heading if it is in the valid range. And my Bot did the same for the files that have been uploaded before the change of the Wizard. Is there any easy way to find all files that are effected by the wrong heading? So we could easily repair them. --Arnd (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Yes, but when I upload files, I have an eye on that, especially on data the UploadWizard fills in automatically. I can repair the files by myself with the help of the mails I received after these edits. The point is: is there a way to avoid this mistake? Perhaps avoiding this edit whenever the EXIF data has a 0° or 360° heading?--Geogast (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The thing is, that valid values are 0<=x<360. If the camera or a program is adding Exif data it should never add the heading parameter if there is no value. In your case it is a bug of the ”Panorado Flyer“ and should be fixed there. --Arnd (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it is (or at least, seems to be) a bug of the tool I use. But I take care when I upload the files. The bot doesn't. So, the bot repeatedly produces a mistake a human user wouldn't. In this case, I think a bot should skip edits in these cases in order do avoid mistakes.--Geogast (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


Please. -- Tuválkin 17:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Tuválkin, thanks for be patient and sorry for this wrong edit. I will fix them. I modified the bot. --Arnd (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Great, thanks. (I wanted to say that it should not remove line end trailing pipes after a template name if the next line doesn’t start with a pipe, but I thought speed reporting would be most important as the problem and its solution were trivial.) -- Tuválkin 18:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Coordinates and Wikidata[edit]

this edit left the coordinates in situ. Did you mean to remove them? Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Andy Mabbett, it is correct the way it is. For now we leave them in place until we have a general template that displays all WD information. But you are right, maybe the summary was a little bit misleading. --Arnd (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Gallery vs coordinates[edit]

Apparently something went wrong here. Jcb (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for being patient, Jcb. I think it was the only edit that went wrong. --Arnd (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
No problem. Jcb (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

"Wrong date" on file talk pages[edit]

hi Arnd, could you pls check the rules of the bot? [1], [2], and [3] do not make sense for me. Raymond 20:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Raymond for being patient. I removed the non-files from the list. --Arnd (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Arnd, thank you very much for fast fixing. Raymond 21:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

"Wrong date" is wrong[edit]

I've seen this bot tag files with "wrong date" and commentary "mentioned date is after the upload date", however, this example is incorrect. For instance, I'm in a timezone that is ahead of most of the world, and uploaded it to a server that was one day behind. Right now for me is 12:20 pm on 8 February 2017, but my signature will say otherwise. You may want to adjust the bot to tag files that are more than a day different. +mt 23:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

same, timezones should be considered. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the hint. I will run a cleanup task. --Arnd (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
done. If there are any other cases feel free to report it. --Arnd (talk) 10:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

File:West 214th Street, Isham Park.jpg[edit]

Bot marked this as wrong date, stating that the file date was after the upload date, but it is incorrect. The image was taken on 20 July 2016 and uploaded on 6 August 2016. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Fix, not tag - ?[edit]

File:Bootstrapping_emitter_follower_to_increase_input_impedance.png - 18:28, 6 November 2016 in upload log, 6 November 2017 in the template - perhaps the bot could fix these simple errors? Retired electrician (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Retired electrician, you are right. But there are many different of such little mistakes. All of them need at least some human review. That is why I would like to see someone browsing Category:Incorrect date and identify groups of files with the same problem and then fix it for example with VisualFileChange.js. --Arnd (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Bot flag[edit]

@Aschroet: Hi. I see that ArndBot has a bot flag, but it seems the edits it makes are not tagged as bot edits, for instance in my watchlist. Do you know why?   — Jeff G. ツ 14:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, no idea. --Arnd (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree, this annoying, and when you go with minoredit!? -- User: Perhelion 19:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Date changes[edit]

I see your bot did a run recently to reformat Date parameters in {{Information}}. When doing so, it for some reason left out the leading 0 when the day is less than 10, e.g. this edit. Anomie (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Anomie, i did it for the sake of simplicity and because {{ISOdate}} can deal with this. Maybe in a later run, we could add the leading 0s. --15:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

In this edit, ArndBot changed the date 17/17/07 into 2007-17-17, which is obviously not a valid date in the international standard calendar of ISO 8601. Any bot should only change unambiguous cases, but it needs to be smart enough to do so. — Christoph Päper 09:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Änderungen am Parameter Datum[edit]

ArndBot verändert z.T. den Eintrag unter Datum der Dateibeschreibung mMn nicht ganz korrekt. Korrekt ist die Anpassung der Formatierung, z.B. statt 7.8.2007 jetzt 2007-8-7 (besser wäre noch 2007-08-07). Nicht korrekt ist aber, dass der Bot Hochladedatum vermerkt, wenn es sich auch um das Aufnahmedatum handelt. Das Hochladedatum ist bereits an anderer Stelle (Datum der ältesten Version) vermerkt, ein zusätzlicher Eintrag ist somit redundant. Manchmal lade ich eben die Dateien bereits am Aufnahmetag hoch. Der Parameter Datum ist das Aufnahmedatum, und das trage ich eigentlich immer richtig ein. Das mit Hochladedatum zu überschreiben, verdeckt die Information zum Aufnahmedatum und unterstellt gleichzeitig einen fehlerhaften Eintrag. Bitte diese Fehlfunktion des ArndBot sofort einstellen. Gruß --Rufus46 (talk) 09:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


Hallo, magst du diese Fehler selbst korrigieren (siehe erg. Wartungskategorie)? --Leyo 20:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Danke Leyo, hab's repariert. --Arnd (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

other date between[edit]

Hallo, Aschroet,

dein Arndbot hat bei File:Olching, Pfarrzentrum St.Elisabeth in Esting.JPG das Datum „2011-0427“ zu „2011-04-27“ ({{other date}}) korrigiert. Der Hochlader hat aber nur einen Strich vergessen und 2011-04-27 gemeint (sieht man aus den EXIF-Daten). Vielleicht sollte dein Bot, bevor er ein between erzeugt, prüfen, ob die Zahlen dazu passen (linke Zahl kleiner als rechte). Grüße -- Renardo la vulpo (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Danke Renardo la vulpo für den Hinweis. Ich habe schon eine Reihe von Daten identifiziert, die ich reparieren muss: [4], [5]. --Arnd (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done


Was ist da schiefgelaufen? Die Vorlage ist laut Template:Artwork korrekt. --Leyo 13:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Ich hatte ein paar Kommentare aufgeräumt, weil ich denke, dass sie nicht wirklich geraucht werden. Habe dann aber damit aufgehört. --Arnd (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Gut, dass du damit aufgehört hast. IMHO sind auskommentierte Vorlagen in solchen Fällen durchaus sinnvoll. VFC-Änderungen sollten zudem nicht kommentarlos erfolgen. --Leyo 16:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Taken on/taken in[edit]

Hello. I see your bot is adding {{taken on}} to images where only the year is listed in the date field. That results in awkward grammar, at least in English. Instead, could you please use {{taken in}} in these cases? Thanks! - Eureka Lott 17:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Eureka Lott, thanks for your patience. Does this also hold for year and month only? --ArndBot (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, please. {{Taken in}} would work better when there's only a year and month. - Eureka Lott 17:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Eureka Lott, i will clean that up soon. --ArndBot (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you! - Eureka Lott 17:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Bot edits[edit]

Please mark your edits as minor. Otherwise users got letters about every edit.--Anatoliy (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Privit Anatoliy, VisualFileChange.js does not have such an option. I now changed my settings so that all future edits are minor ones.
User:Leyo, just as a second oppinion. Is that what we want when using VFC - bot flag and minor edits? I thought that bot is enough. I am a little nerved from repeated blockings... --Arnd (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Bot flag or minor edit is probably sufficient in most cases.
It would be good if VFC would have the option to mark the edits as minor. --Leyo 14:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)