User talk:McZusatz

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 3 days. For the archive overview, see /Archive.


License Review[edit]

If you have some time, please try to mark some images in the license review category above. Admin Morning Sunshine has been away since April 5 and I mark mostly flickr images and have my own job too. So, this category has grown, I notice. If not, please ask other active Admins to mark some images in this category with 400+ images. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Crimea Emblem.gif[edit]

Why here file was removed, but not replaced?--Anatoliy (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

This DR[edit]

If you can, please feel free to state if this image can be kept without COM:OTRS permission. I have no clear views on it, just some doubts whether the flickr owner owns its copyright outright. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

  • The DR discussion appears to be delete but now there are these other images to consider. Best Wishes, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

File replacements of seals, ...[edit]

With these replacements, it is worthwhile checking the place/... at Wikidata as they have a property for things like a seal, and it needs to be updated manually. :-/ There is a bugzilla request to somehow display that the link exists on the image, however, at this time, it hasn't exited anyone sufficiently to work out how to fix the beast.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I never heard of it. Please send me some links and I will add it to the growing list of problems when moving files... --McZusatz (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Broken(?) video not generating thumbnails[edit]

Namaste, McZusatz.

This file you uploaded is broken: File:Yochai Benkler - On Autonomy, Control and Cultural Experience.ogg

It fails to generate a thumbnail and the servers are throwing error pages when trying to create the image too. The original does not exhibit this behaviour.

edit: the video itself plays just fine however.

What is the difference between the two and, why the need for a dupe? Can't we remove yours, or swap their position so that the old (non-broken one) is the default choice? Regards. Dsprc (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow up. The uploads are indeed the same and both fail equally in regards to generating thubmnails. (You should try a 122px thumbnail instead of the cached 120px thumbnail)
Nonetheless I have remapped the streams and everything should now work as expected. --McZusatz (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Very cool, thanks. :) These 3 seem to be doing the same thing as well:
These are lower priority as they're not really being used anywhere yet so, no biggie. -- Dsprc (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Those three are supposed to be broken. ;D bugzilla:53863 needs to be fixed first. --McZusatz (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Low-Density Supersonic Decelerator SIAD-R rocket sled test video.webm[edit]

Hey there, since there seems to be an issue with transcoding File:Low-Density Supersonic Decelerator SIAD-R rocket sled test video.webm, I went ahead and uploaded File:Low-Density Supersonic Decelerator SIAD-R rocket sled test video.ogv, which appears to be working fine. Since you also uploaded to the webm version, I won't request speedy deletion. If you would delete the webm version, however, I'd appreciate it. Huntster (t @ c) 23:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

As of now a direct upload from youtube is not encouraged because VP9 is not yet supported by TimedMediaHandler. Therefore I have uploaded a VP8 transcode created from the h264 version of youtube and I'd propose to keep the WebM version because WebM generally offers better quality than ogv. --McZusatz (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
If the original file is now working, then go ahead and kill off the OGV file. I'll not be using WebM again in the future, as it is simply too finicky (and, personally speaking, I see no benefit in quality over OGV). Thanks for your help in all this. Huntster (t @ c) 22:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

FN Minimi[edit]

So in ordung?--Sanandros (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Falls der Flickr Nutzer korrekt ist, koennten wir die restlichen Dateien auch hochladen. ( ) --McZusatz (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Looking for contacts of photographer made this photo. --VjacheslavWolski (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


To make a dead link[1], please stop. 221.20 (talk) 08:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't really get the whole point of changing the user's site-wide language to only display the description in another language. For changing the language of the description we have the "Language select-dropdown" (as you can find it on File:Albania - Lin and Ohrid Lake.JPG). And for changing the display language you can use the Link in the upper right section of every page. (Left from your username) --McZusatz (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
There is other way, such as to notify me, it is not a reason that it makes the red link. Please prudent work.221.20 (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
What is your opinion on the two proposals I made (c.f. )
In general the already widely used {{information}} template should be used to make it as machine readable as possible. Also the maintenance is easier... --McZusatz (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I've comment out the relevant part as an interim treatment[2]. I will consider based on your comment. might take to understand in English. Thank you. 221.20 (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
If you have trouble understanding my Englisch, I often recommend (sometimes the translation is ok). If you are ok with one of my proposals, we should change your template and fix all of the files. I can help you with that, so just let me know. --McZusatz (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Der Bot macht tolle Wartungsarbeit, vielen Dank dafür nochmals. Hast Du mal über Klone nachgedacht die von Hinten oder bei Buchstabengruppen ab G bzw P anfangen um die aufgestauten Arbeiten schneller erldigen zu können? Der Hauptbot wühlt sich gerade erst durch C. Um mal an die Zukunft zu denken: Wäre schön wenn man den Bot bzw seine Funktionen irgendwie auf Labs realisieren könnte und den dort mit ggf mehreren Maintainern als generellen Wartungsbot für Commons zur Verfügung hätte. --Denniss (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Ja, bis der einmal durch ist, dauert es noch Monate (oder Jahre?). Anstatt mehrere Bots laufen zu lassen koennte ich auch die Edit-rate erhoehen. (An die 5 sekunden regel hat sich Commons:Bots/Requests/SchlurcherBot auch nicht gehalten...)
Zur Zeit kompiliere ich den Bot in ein .jar und benutze Labs nur als host. In welcher Form kann ich die Funktion des Bots als generellen Wartungsbot bereitstellen? Webinterface? --McZusatz (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Wenn Du den code bereitstellst, wuerde ich einen Bot parallel laufen lassen. Ich habe hier noch einen Laptop auf dem zur Zeit nur BOINC laeuft. Ich wollte den eh auf Linux umstellen. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: Gerne, kannst du dann wie oben gewuenscht bei 'P' anfangen? Bitte benutze die Version vom 14. August (Findest du, wenn du den Namen des Bots bei google eintippst). Kompilieren musst du selbst, aber lass mich wissen wenn es Probleme gibt. --McZusatz (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Ja wo laufen sie denn? :) Hast Du den bot nur auf dem Toolserver? Da komme ich nicht ran. Google gibt mir nur blogs und Zeugs. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Macht der Bot keine Internationalisierung vom Datum? Da hat er das deutsche Datumsformat dringelssen. --Denniss (talk) 09:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

com:regex#Dates ist zu allgemein gehalten. Nur mit Kenntnis des Datums weiss man nicht ob das August oder November ist. Kontextbasierte Erkennung waere aber eine Moeglichkeit... --McZusatz (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

GIFTagger replacing GIFs with PNGs[edit]

Hi McZusatz, I noticed GifTagger is uploading PNG equivalents of GIFs and rediredting the GIF to the new PNG file. Why is this necessary? Why not upload the new PNG under a new name and keep the existing GIF (to maintain an audit trail if nothing else)? Has this action been discussed and agreed somewhere?

Also, I noticed that some new PNG files are getting tagged by bots for incomplete source information, for example: File:4th MLG.png. This might lead to the PNGs being deleted unnecessarily. I cannot see the original GIF's page description so I cannot see whether the whole of the original description and any licence tags were copied over. Is the GifTagger bot operating correctly in these cases? Thanks. -84user (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

user:Hedwig in Washington is not a bot afaik. There is no processing in the file description page involved so the whole description is just copied over. If there is a licensing problem with the source file, there will be with the PNG file. --McZusatz (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. A deletion is possible, true that. Nevertheless, if a file doesn't have an identifiable source it can't be hosted on Commons. The main goal is to get the uploader to add a source. There are over 55,000 files without source - I can't find them all. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Guten Morgen![edit]

Also wenn eine so einfache Datei wie Bsp_Duplex.gif schon in irgendwas anderes konvertiert werden muss, dann hätte sich aber *.svg besser angeboten als *.png.
Liebe Grüße, --Charly Whisky (talk) 07:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Das Gif war in der vollen Aufloesung eingebunden, daher kein visueller Unterschied. (Bei thumbnails waere allerdings ein grosser sichtbar gewesen!)
Einen PNG->SVG-Bot gibt es noch nicht, aber File:Bsp Duplex.svg sollte passen? --McZusatz (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Passte! Vielen Dank! Ich weiß bloß immer noch nicht, wie man das macht, dass die Texte in den SVG sich automatisch an die benutzte Sprache anpassen. Irgendwie sollte das gehen. Bisher machte ich das dann als Trick mit einem zweiten Layer, wie bei de:Dauerstrichradar und en:Continuous-wave radar sowie diversen anderen Sprachen. --Charly Whisky (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Ich glaube du meinst Category:Translation possible - SVG (switch). (In der Kat. findest du ein paar Beispiele) --McZusatz (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ja, das habe ich jetzt mal ausgiebig getestet. Leider hat dieses System einen entscheidenden Nachteil. Die jeweilige Sprache innerhalb des SVG wird abgerufen durch die Sprache des Betriebssystems. Hast du ein Englisch-sprachiges Windoof, dann eben Englisch. Hast du ein Windoof in Swahili, dann ebenfalls in Englisch, weil ich kein Swahili implementiert habe, Hast du ein Windoof in Frangßösüsch, dann kommt auch die gefragte Sprache (hier französisch) zur Anzeige. Das ist aber nicht das, was ich möchte. Ich hätte gerne eine Sprachenverteilung entsprechend dem Metatag, zum Beispiel: <meta http-equiv="content-language" content="bg" />. Das macht das SVG dann allerdings nicht. Schade. Dank jedoch für deine Hinweise. --Charly Whisky (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No token for old man[edit]

Moin! YacBot pausiert zur Zeit gerne mal 240/400 sec. und beim Verschieben von Dateien bekomme ich oft No token for Gibt es dafuer schon einen Bug report? Oder sind das andere Wehwechen? LG --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

  • YaCBot pausiert, sobald die Server mit Fehlercodes antworten; Und das passiert erstaunlich oft. Es liegt eigentlich im Aufgabengebiet der WMF die Spendengelder sinnvoll aufzuteilen...
  • Kannst du in den naechsten Tagen nochmal vesuchen eclipse (oder netbeans) zum laufen zu bringen und die neueste Version von YaCBot kompilieren? Meine Festplatte ist zur Zeit kaputt und ich kann nicht wirklich was am Stueck erledigen.
  • Einen bugreport fuer notoken habe ich nicht gefunden.
--McZusatz (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Careful when deleting files with GifTagger[edit]

File:Btn edit.gif was replaced with a png version, but the original was used in a user script, which became broken as a consequence. Would it be possible for GifTagger to search for instances of the filename in user scripts before deleting? That would prevent other such cases from happening. --Waldir talk 15:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

If you really want to hard-code the image into the code instead of solving the redirect (or filing a bug to let the server solve the redirect), you could also use a thumbnailed version of the image like commons/thumb/e/ec/Btn_edit.gif/15px-Btn_edit.gif which currently redirects correctly to the PNG thumb. --McZusatz (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


durch die Verschiebung von Alzey_land_wappen-vg.gif -> Alzey_land_wappen-vg.png bin ich auf deinen Bot aufmerksam geworden. Ich gehe derzeit die hochgeladenen Wappen der rheinland-pfälzischen Kommunen durch, um sie falls nötig mit mittlerweile in besserer Qualität vorliegenden Dateien zu überschreiben. Viel zu viele Wappen sind allerdings nur als gif oder jpg hochgeladen. Der Idealfall wäre natürlich, wenn alle Wappen - die nicht eh schon vektorisiert vorliegen - als png da wären. In wieweit könntest du mir mit deinem Bot helfen und wie könnte ich dich unterstützen? Ich weiß ja nicht wie ein solcher Bot funktioniert, und ob nicht eine Dateiliste o.ä. nötig ist, die ich dir voher erstell. Fränsmer (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Ich versuche noch den #Bot_bug diese Woche zu fixen, bevor ich den naechsten lauf mache. --McZusatz (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Hallo McZusatz,
könnte dieser eine Differenzierung machen wenn die GIF bereits mit einer SVG getaggt ist!? Ansonsten wäre das eine ziemlich redundante (und sinnärmere) Tätigkeit. Nun verstehe ich dass der Bot nicht die SVG beurteilen kann, daher schlage ich vor dieser generiert erst mal eine weitere Wartungs-Kat. die einen kurzen Check erlaubt um dann die SVG und nicht die PNG ersetzt!? LG User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 16:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

PNG compression[edit]

Hallo McZusatz,
benutzt du bzw. GifTagger eigentl. eine extra KompressionsRoutine? Es ist mir stichprobenartig aufgefallen dass sich diese noch etwas schrumpfen lassen. Das wäre doch sicherlich angebracht bzw. eine Erwähnung wert. Beste Grüße User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 14:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ja, das is aber ein separater task, den ich dann spaeter ausfuehre. --McZusatz (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Can one tag files to request conversion by GifTagger from .jpg or .gif to .png?[edit]

Hi McZusatz,

I redrew File:ABOMRibbon.png last night to get softer lines and to correct the dimensions. Since the existing file was in .png format, I had to convert my drawing from .jpg to .png before uploading it. The file is used, among several other articles, in South African Republic & Orange Free State War Medal, where I also needed a mirror image of the same image. I therefore rotated my drawing 180 degrees and uploaded File:ABO SAR & OFS War Medal OFS.jpg without bothering to convert it.

It was only when I added the two images into the article that I noticed the difference in quality between the reduced size .png and .jpg images, and the penny dropped for me as to why some of these files show up distorted as thumbnails, especially some of the red and dark green colours.

Now I have a whole bunch of files in .jpg and .gif format to convert to .png format, which will be a painful exercise. Then I noticed your GifTagger bot's signature in File:ABOMRibbon.png. This seems to be exactly what I need.

Is there a template to tag a .jpg or .gif file for conversion to .png by the bot? -- André Kritzinger (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't bother. I did it the hard way. -- André Kritzinger (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Uncategorized for user images[edit]

Hello McZusatz, as an example consider File:Johann Jaritz Loibltal 12072008 01.jpg, which was tagged as {{uncategorized}} (by your bot) and is a user image. This creates a tension because uncategorized cannot be easily resolved in such cases. Would it be possible to refrain from adding uncategorized to user page images? Maybe even remove this template from user page images. Just to ease the backlog of uncategorized images. What do you think? I write in English to get a broader audience if needed. liebe Grüße --Herzi Pinki (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Right now, it is caused by the category being hidden. And according to the category's description one should rather use Category:Wikimedians or other categories to categorize the content. --McZusatz (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion it shouldn't matter whether Category:User page images is hidden or not. It's not useful to flag them as uncat. I'm not the only one who cats uncat files from time to time, but if {{User page image}} is classified as uncat I will stop doing so. Btw, I'm not sure, should Category:User page images of dogs of Wikimedians by country be hidden too or not... Gruß, --Achim (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
@Achim55: Hiddencat wurde heute herausgenommen. Ist also alles wieder wie vorher. --McZusatz (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Das ist nett, danke! Gruß, --Achim (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Formell korrekte Entfernungen[edit]

Hallo McZusatz. Formell hat dein Bot da schon richtig gehandelt. So wäre hingegen keine Information verloren gegangen. --Leyo 21:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Das waren 60 Dateien alle vom gleichen Uploader. In den letzten 30 Tagen sind nur zwei aehnliche Faelle aufgetreten. Da YaCBot ohnehin schon fast durch ist, macht es in meinen Augen keinen Sinn den Code anzupassen. Aber danke fuer den Hinweis. Ich habe mich um die Faelle gekuemmert. --McZusatz (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Danke! Was heisst „fast durch“? Wann wird das etwa sein? Laut den Treffern unter COM:BWR#Removing “none” hat er noch einiges vor sich. --Leyo 23:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Sieht fast so aus, als waeren es nur noch die Buchstaben {R,S,T} --McZusatz (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Hm, da sehe ich noch etliche andere Anfangsbuchstaben. Kümmert sich der Bot nicht auch um solche Korrekturen? --Leyo 00:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

YaCBot categorisation of image marked as {{user page image}} as uncategorised[edit]


I notice that your bot has (re-) classified File:TheWolverineVisitsRedRobin.jpg as "uncategorised". ([3])

This was already marked as a {{user page image}}- placing it in Category:User page images- and the previous "uncategorised" template had been removed. ([4]) (Since it's apparently a personal image being used for legitimate userspace purposes, but not in-scope for Commmons proper).

So, is it that (a) either I or the other person have overlooked something that should have been done to prevent this, or (b) has Yacbot made a mistake in restoring its "uncategorised" status...?

Would appreciate your feedback, thanks!

Ubcule (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:User page images reads "this is more of a maintenance category than a content one (Category:Wikimedians is the content one)"; So I'd propose to add category:Wikipedians. --McZusatz (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Was the classification automatic, or did you use your discretion?
The reason I ask is, if it was mainly automatic I imagine there might be cases where a legitimate userpage image doesn't belong in any of the mainspace categories at all(?)... yet it would be annoying if such images were marked as "unclassified". Ubcule (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, it is automatic. (Hidden categories are not considered by the bot)
If there is any such case arising, I'd be happy to change the behavior in regards to this category. --McZusatz (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Ubcule (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: Hiddencat was removed to restore the old behavior. --McZusatz (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


some time ago (27. Aug. 2014‎) your bot has made changes in the buttons MediaWiki_edit_toolbar#Clipboard (converting gif to png). Since then these additional buttons do not appear anymore as they should in my editor extension list. They were created by User Exxu (who is not active anymore) especially for this purpose. See MediaWiki:Gadget-SemanticTemplates.js on german wikiversity. Could you please either solve this problem or tell me how to solve this or rechange this. Greetings and thank you very much.--Bocardodarapti (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think using a hotlink is considered best practice... You can either use sth. like or wait for phabricator:T37721 to get fixed. --McZusatz (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
thanks. It took me a while to understand what you meant, but now it works.--Bocardodarapti (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

"Redundant information"[edit] on this and others, I'm trying to understand how this information is "redundant". As far as I can tell, it for that bot, this is the only indication of who made the bot request to get the upload. Once that's gone, while someone can, indeed, tell what bot did the job, they can't see at whose behest. Or am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk 10:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The information is present in the upload summary: --McZusatz (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah. Fine then. I wasn't aware of that. Though if you look at it, it's a bit cut off; if the URL & name were any longer it could be completely lost. Is the bot making sure that isn't the case? - Jmabel ! talk Jmabel ! talk 17:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
People will think you are the author. Imo the uploader has nothing to do in the source field. Not sure where to put it instead. I can put it in the edit summary of the bot, though. Like this. --McZusatz (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
This removal seems like a bad idea and I doubt that it represents consensus. I've never heard of anyone deciding it would be helpful to Commons to actively blank the names of good-faith contributors/uploaders. That source information is the provenance for the upload; removing it implies that that the bot User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) is the cause and that Magnus Manske (talk · contribs) is to blame for any inappropriate uploads. His upload bot is doing the right thing; everyone should easily be to see which human caused a bot action, not be silently mislead into thinking the bot owner did it. It is not redundant; the user that caused the action does not appear anywhere else on the page. Snippets of original upload edit summaries (often chopped off) don't count; neither do things hidden in some edit history with no on-page hint that there used to be more information that was suppressed. I've used File Upload Bot myself before, and I don't intend for Magnus Manske to have to take complaints on his talk page about my uploads. Which leads to another problem: If it's not in the upload logs under the user's account, and you remove it from the current searchable version of the page, how do people search for bot uploads by a specific contributor? Furthermore, I doubt it's going to lessen confusion: If someone is so "confused" that they see two "Source" lines and an "Author" line, and don't realize that the author is the one labeled "Author", that user is not going to be helped much by making the provenance confusing for everyone else too. --Closeapple (talk) 05:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Closeapple: So you would prefer to be accused of copyfraud? --McZusatz (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know why "you" is linked to that photo; I've never been involved in that photo. File:Atlanta Police GA USA - Ford Crown Victoria (1).jpg is clearly attributed to "dave conner from Inverness, Scotland". I also am not involved in the off-wiki page. That web page just proves my point: It's a supposed news website, but credited the photo to "" instead of "Wikimedia Commons" (which is a .org, by the way), so it was going to be wrong no matter what. The problem isn't that Commons was confusing; the problem is that reusing website apparently simply doesn't care to pay attention to details. (Further on that note: That website is using this 2005 photograph of an Atlanta Police squad in an unusual color, as the alleged news image for a 2015 shooting incident.) There's no copyfraud by me, or by User:Oxyman who triggered the bot upload, which I guess is what you were trying to get at. The copyright holder, presumably Dave Conner, has every right to tell that site take his photograph out until they learn to type for accuracy instead of speed. If that reusing web page had attributed the photo to "Atlanta Police GA" (which is in the source line also) or "File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske)", would those have to be removed from the Commons page also to avoid confusion? Even on Commons itself, new users who upload often misattribute the source to the blatantly-inaccurate "Own work", but we don't go back and blame the previous source for copyfraud or for causing confusion by making the user think he could take credit. --Closeapple (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't accusing anyone of copyfraud. I merely picked the first image I found to illustrate my point: If the website indeed did not care, they'd give no attribution at all, but it seems they (at least) tried to attribute correctly but failed because it was too confusing, which is more than understandable imo. I guess it would only take me another 12 minutes to find a similar image falsely attributed to you...
The only way this can be fixed on a broader scale is to provide clear instructions how to attribute, which boils down to machine readable templates (or even better: Using wikidata). Abusing the space between the source and author field to state the initiator of upload may appear convenient but does not solve any of all the issues mentioned above...
Let's stop arguing about specific websites, commons users or files and focus on how to fix this properly! --McZusatz (talk) 09:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rillke: Are you aware of any {{uploaded by}}? --McZusatz (talk) 09:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  1. The uploader's name does not really belong there, neither into the source field, nor into the author field. Most of the time.
  2. The uploader's user name can be found in the first page revision.
  3. I guess in future the upload bot is using OAuth, thus there is no need to identify the uploader in the upload summary (because the user account of the uploading user will be used instead).
  4. I am not aware of {{uploaded by}} and I fail to see why we would want that. The time of Bot X doing something on behalf of User Y should be over after OAuth is around for a while. -- Rillke(q?) 21:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I noticed some of these removals and thought to myself: "Great, I totally agree, but I am glad I am not the one who has to deal with all of the aggrieved users." I sometimes mention myself in the authorial field, but only if I carried out meaningful changes to the file. In short, I support the removal of these fields. Maybe, since you seem not to fear long and pointless debates, could you also check out Category:Polski Fiat 125p and other Polish automobile categories? A few editors have made these irretrievably confusing, making it near impossible to get an overview of which photos are there. Besides the point, I know... mr.choppers (talk)-en- 18:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I had a quick look and could not see what is wrong with Category:Polski Fiat 125p. --McZusatz (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with McZusatz because the uploader details are usually in the upload log at the bottom of the page. Where a bot has been used and it doesn't mention the human user, it is usually possible to work it out from the history. Uploaders can also add such files to one or more hidden user upload categories and/or user-space galleries. How much more recognition does an uploader need? This is precisely the issue that was raised by The-Beloved-but-Banned User:Russavia recently, causing much gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair amongst the peasantry. Green Giant (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
This isn't about "recognition". It's about someone being able to track me down as effective uploader if they have an issue with the file. And I don't want to have to add hidden categories to all my uploads -- especially not to track down years-old uploads (hundreds of them, maybe thousands) and add such a category to enable that. - Jmabel ! talk 19:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The file that you originally pointed to at the start of this thread has Uploaded by [[User:Jmabe in the upload log, and the second edit in the file history is by you, so I think it would be fairly easy to work out that User:Jmabel was the human behind the upload. That said, would it be better to have an extra field in the infobox templates for |uploader = , to go just below the author line? Green Giant (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

YaCBot consensus needed[edit]

Hi, stripping uploader info like this has no consensus I am aware of. I have reverted the example. Could you reconsider and restore where this has been done? Thanks -- (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Uploader information is irrelevant and misleading and often led to misattribution in the past (to uploader, not Flickr author). --Denniss (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not aware of a single reason why not to do this. The information is usually still included in the upload summary, thus completely redundant. Additionally, you can find it in the first version of the page like with all the flickr uploads done by user:Flickr upload bot. (c.f. ) --McZusatz (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
There remains no consensus for this change. The information is not anywhere on the live image page and is useful. Please establish a consensus or revert these changes. -- (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Consensus is irrelevant if this useless info leads to attribution/licensing issues. AFAIR there was some discussion on Bot work request page as well.--Denniss (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
In this case, the information is nowhere on the image page text and the uploader was the tool, not the guiding mind (the design being before we had OAUTH available). Easily finding the batch uploader is important for future housekeeping or categorization, and not many of our users will be able to work around this by accessing earlier image page versions (which dramatically increases the processing load and will never be ideal) nor is the text in the upload comments field a reliable indicator.
Where any "housekeeping" change is controversial or seems controversial, our default is to not argue the case but to halt, revert and reach a consensus. The responsibility for gaining a consensus is the bot operator's. If you believe the current text invariably leads to copyright problems, then make the case as part of gaining consensus and suggest some alternatives rather than blanking valid information about the batch upload.
-- (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
This was already posted to VP (and maybe even BWR). Plus, there was a discussion going on two sections above this one and I count about 6 people supporting this and less than 6 people opposing. You can also find some direct links where this lead to copyright violations in those sections. Where else should we start another discussion about this? --McZusatz (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Lastly, users can normally find the information on the live image page in the upload summary and bots crawling all flickr uploads need to refer to the first entry of the history anyway due to the uploads done by user:Flickr upload bot. I don't see how this adds any burden. --McZusatz (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Could you supply links to the consensus please? "Image page text" does not include the upload history. As an example a VFC user would be unable to use it, but they can before the YaCBot changes. -- (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I could wrap it into a comment and append it to the page text. --McZusatz (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC) --McZusatz (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Approved scope of YaCBot (talk · contribs)[edit]

Hi McZusatz, I see there has been quite a bit of discussion and contention about one of the tasks being carried out by YaCBot (talk · contribs), namely deletion of uploader information. Unless I have missed something, the authority under which the bot is operating is set out in your original bot request of December 2013:

  • File-Cleanup:
    1. Internationalization
    2. General cleanup (com:regex: Dates, Format, Junk, Interwikilinks, ...)
    3. com:OVERCAT-cleanup removed per discussion OverBot will solve those
    4. Remove duplicate categories (regardless of their sortkey)
    5. Remove {{uncategorized}} if more than zero two or more visible categories are there
    6. Mark as uncategorized if zero visible categories are found (Only hidden ones or no at all)

Of the approved tasks, none covers the task of deleting uploader information. The closest might be "general cleanup (junk)", but the information being deleted is not 'junk' even if there is an argument that it would be better displayed in some other location or in some other way. As the bot is operating in an unauthorized manner it is liable to be blocked, but I would hope that can be avoided as it is doing other useful things.

Could I ask you please to confirm clearly here that you will immediately and permanently stop that task, if you have not done so already? Once that's confirmed, community discussion can continue with a view to reaching consensus on the best way to handle this. If consensus can be reached, please then make a fresh application at Commons:Bots/Requests to have this task added to the bot's approved work. All the best, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

There is already a voting going on (here). My intention was to stop the bot if there is only half (or less) of the participants supporting this task. But I may shut down the bot as long as the discussion is ongoing. --McZusatz (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm aware of the discussion and the vote you have set up. You need not stop the entire bot, but could you please confirm that you have switched off the task of deleting uploader details? This is purely to make sure Commons' bot policy is complied with; I make no comment on whether the actual task is a net positive or negative. Many thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


Please when you publish a message in a not english community try to provide translations in other languages as possible. It will be gratefulled. Not everyone can understand english, and readers of a Spanish language site would expect read text in Spanish. --Zerabat (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Report for files uploaded between July 26 and August 04[edit]

[skipped: 0; deleted: 8.519 %; IOExceptions: 0;]

Hi, I just finished my run and found 55 problematic instances. I was unsure about 14 of the files and it is up to you to have a look at them.

--Flock (talk) 05:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

YacBot adding redundant categories[edit]

First, I should say that I've been watching YaCBot do its work for a long time, and it's a very good thing. Thank you for all of the work you've put into that bot.

I noticed that YacBot is taking the photographs I've uploaded from flickr and are adding them to Category:Uploaded by user Hike395. The problem is that I already have a tracking category for my flickr uploads: Category:Files by User:Hike395 from flickr. So, YacBot is adding redundant categories to my uploads.

I'm not the only person with a flickr tracking category. See Category:Flickr files by uploader for (at least) 13 other users who do this. Other users have tracking categories for their uploads, as can be seen at Category:User categories, although it would be impossible in general to figure out which ones are upload tracking and which ones are personal photographs.

For the 14 users in Category:Flickr files by uploader, can YacBot add to the existing categories, rather than making a mess of redundant categories? Thanks for your consideration!

— hike395 (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Later --- one thing you may wish to consider is merging Category:Files by uploader that you created on July 27 into Category:Flickr files by uploader, which has existed since 2008. — hike395 (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for providing clear instructions for improvement. All should be fixed now. --McZusatz (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick response! — hike395 (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

YaCBot user categorization[edit]

Note here superseded, please refer to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#YaCBot. Thanks -- (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

If you don't like the name of the category, please suggest a better name. The category represented by the new name may or may not exist. Also the new name may or may not be an empty String. --McZusatz (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Please read the AN discussion and consider replying there. The problem is wider than just me and your reply here indicates that you have not understood the difficulty of generically solving the duplicate user category issue, or the best practice of asking active users to opt-in, which in my view should be more than an optional courtesy for bot operators implementing controversial changes. Thanks -- (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-40[edit]

15:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-41[edit]

18:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-42[edit]

16:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Report for files uploaded between October 04 and October 13[edit]

[skipped: 25; deleted: 7.802 %; IOExceptions: 0;]

Hi, I just finished my run and found 27 problematic instances. I was unsure about 2 of the files and it is up to you to have a look at them.

--Flock (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-43[edit]

16:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Imker - Verbesserungsvorschlag[edit]

Hallo McZusatz,

vielen Dank für den Imker, den ich in den letzten Tagen öfter benutzt hatte.

Einen Verbesserungsvorschlag habe ich: Bei Dateien, die laut Betriebssystem nicht auf die lokale Plattform heruntergeladen werden können (unerlaubte Zeichen im Dateinamen: beispielsweise Freudenberg_-_historischer_Stadtkern_"Alter_Flecken".jpg ) sollte die Behandlung (Windows character bug) verändert werden. Dann generell alle Dateinamen zu codieren halte ich für gar nicht gut. Ich musste mühsam heraus finden welche Dateien betroffen waren und mehrmals den Download starten um eine Gesamtmenge von uncodierten Filenamen zu erhalten.

Mein Vorschlag: die problematischen Dateien in einem Unterordner (encodeing filenames beispielsweise) codiert zu schreiben und eine Fehlerdatei (als .txt -Logbuch) zusätzlich dort unterbringen. Diese Fehlerdatei kann am Ende ausgegeben werden, damit man überhaupt heraus findet was überhaupt problematisch war und gegebenfalls eingreifen kann.

--Atamari (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@McZusatz: --Atamari (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-44[edit]

18:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-45[edit]

16:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Report for files uploaded between October 19 and October 28[edit]

[skipped: 0; deleted: 11.433 %; IOExceptions: 2;]

Hi, I just finished my run and found 108 problematic instances. I was unsure about 7 of the files and it is up to you to have a look at them.

--Flock (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Chrysomelidae specimens[edit]

Chrysomelidae sp. means a species of the family Chrysomelidaea - correct category is therefore Category:Unidentified Chrysomelidae. A specimen is an example for a species in a scientific collection - zu deutsch ein Belegexemplar für eine Tierart --Kersti (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Idealerweise sollte die Kategorie dann nicht existieren oder weitergeleitet werden. --McZusatz (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Nein, das sin zwei verschiedene Wörter. Ein specimen ist ein Museumsexemplar einer Art, sagen wir mal ein ausgestopftes Tier oder ein mit einer Nadel aufgespießter Schmetterling in einer Sammlung. "sp." ist die Abkürzung für species, das heißt Art - also eine Tier- oder Pflanzenart wie Beispielsweise der Schwan (Cygnus olor). - Deine Gleichsetzung von specimen und species (sp.) ist falsch. --Kersti (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, werde ich so an meinen Bot weiterleiten. --McZusatz (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-46[edit]

17:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Report for files uploaded between October 27 and November 05[edit]

[skipped: 5; deleted: 9.091 %; IOExceptions: 5;]

Hi, I just finished my run and found 34 problematic instances. I was unsure about 2 of the files and it is up to you to have a look at them.

--Flock (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-47[edit]

19:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Report for files uploaded between November 04 and November 13[edit]

[skipped: 5; deleted: 8.8 %; IOExceptions: 2;]

Hi, I just finished my run and found 63 problematic instances. I was unsure about 2 of the files and it is up to you to have a look at them.

--Flock (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

File tagging File:Logo Aaltjesdagen Harderwijk.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Logo Aaltjesdagen Harderwijk.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS ( This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Logo Aaltjesdagen Harderwijk.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Agora (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-48[edit]

20:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Report for files uploaded between November 11 and November 20[edit]

[skipped: 0; deleted: 11.499 %; IOExceptions: 1;]

Hi, I just finished my run and found 26 problematic instances. I was unsure about 2 of the files and it is up to you to have a look at them.

--Flock (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)