User talk:Multichill/Archives/2010/January

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Template:Potd description

Is het misschien ook mogelijk om een delay in te bouwen van 31 dagen in de robot? Dan hoeft bij het overhevelen van de onderschriften naar de Nederlandstalige wiki (nl:Sjabloon:POTD_onderschrift) niet steeds de code van Template:Potd description er weer om weg gehaald te worden. Na 31 dagen volgt normaliter de volgende maand en kunnen de oude onderschriften (van de vorige maand) dan worden gearchiveerd/gecategoriseerd met het sjabloon. --Hardscarf (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Eigenlijk wil ik juist de boel bijhouden omdat het snel zo rommelig wordt. Waarom wordt het overzetten eigenlijk handmatig gedaan? Zou toch zo automatisch moeten kunnen? Die template code haal je er trouwens vrij makkelijk af met een reguliere expressie. Multichill (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Als je een manier weet om het automatisch te doen, hou ik mij aanbevolen. Het wordt nu gekopieerd vanaf een automatisch gegenereerde lijst hier. En wat bedoel je met 'reguliere expressie'? - ik kan het grootste deel er met search en replace wel uithalen in bijvoorbeeld MS-Word, maar voor elke dag staat er weer een nieuwe datum bij variabele 5 (bv. 5=01, 5=02 etc.), zodat alle onderschriften allemaal moeten worden nagelopen om die datum weer te wissen. Als je een betere manier weet, graag, maar anders zou ik graag opteren voor een delay (ik maakte de onderschriften met opzet al zo veel mogelijk aan in de laatste dagen van de maand om de bot te kunnen ontlopen, maar nu heeft dat blijkbaar ook geen zin meer) - de onderschriften staan allemaal in een formaat, zodat de rommel ook na 31 dagen toch netjes wordt opgeruimd door de bot? Of zijn er andere problemen? --Hardscarf (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

COM:PS

Hi Multichill, I'm - apart from this deletion request - not too experienced on Commons. It would be great if you could tell me which part of the PS includes File:Geschändetehostie.jpg. Thank you very much. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The part about possible educational usage (it was used). Trying to get something deleted by a narrow interpretation of scope won't get you anywhere here. Multichill (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

@Multichill, I’m quite disappointed how „easy“ you closed this rfd. Your rationale “We don't delete … tasteless, offensive or because you don't like it” shows to me that you haven’t really taken the time/pain to read through the discussion, which would have been your duty, as I don’t have to tell you as an admin-colleague. Otherwise you might have noted that there are other problems with this image beyond offensiveness as I[1] and a few others have pointed out. I’m well aware that any decision in such a case is difficult, but one shouldn’t take it that easy. Just for you to know, I’ve put a {{fact disputed}} tag on the image as there is no proof of the validity of the claim in the description. --Túrelio (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I did read it and that's why I came to this conclusion. Multichill (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The amount of delete votes on DRs like this always leads people to think that we can just brush aside one of our most fundamental policies. Anyway, I just want to say I completely support the closure and would have done the same (it would have qualified for a speedy close in my book since any amount of discussion won't change the outcome). Rocket000 (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Evil Poles needed

Done! odder (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Your translations are visible at {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-example}} (pl). Multichill (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Heidenhoek_Brunsveldweg.JPG

Hi Multichill, you're from the Dutch wikipedia. aren't you? The above mentioned file has been speedy deleted 3 days ago. I didn't react because I wasn't in office during the X-mas period. The photo was taken by me in January last year, so I felt free to reload it with the proper tags. I hope this OK? The picture was used in the article nl:Heidenhoek, but I can't repair that due to some problems that arose there. Peter HO (dutch wiki)/Peter O (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also active at nlwp. If it's own work, why did you add source/author = Stichting Achterhoek Weer Mooi ? Multichill (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bot's reattribution of my photo

Hello again, Multichill, and Happy New Year! I see your BotMultichillT has cleverly replaced my own description and details of a photo of mine with the details from a Geograph page that someone had added an external link to some time ago. I have put my own original details back. Please can you make sure it doesn't do it again? Cheers, SiGarb (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that was not supposed to happen! Was a one time big cleaning operation because unfortunatly a lot of Geograph images were lacking information. This was to prepare for Commons:Batch uploading/Geograph. Multichill (talk) 09:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

User:D-Kuru/licence

Two short questions: 1) What was so bad about {{Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.0-at}}? It was based on {{Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} which still exists.
2) Is that yellow box with the red border at the top of User:D-Kuru/licence not big enough or did you just give a fuck on it? May the text ("You are NOT allowed to edit this template! If you have any ideas or want to change something (e.g. the categorisation) contact me!") was just too difficult to understand... It was not a coincidence that 01-AT and 02-CBS2 had the same entry even there was no actual need for it. Even I'm not editing a page every day I have a look at least once a day on my talk page so there was no need for that change. Thanks for your attention --D-Kuru (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  1. It was not a non-standard, barely used, not translated Creative Commons license tag. It's now replace with standard license tags which have at least 20 translations
  2. I didn't notice it. Big shiny notices look like spam so I stopped noticing them long ago. Even if I did I would probably have changed it anyway in the spirit of the Wiki.
Multichill (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Creative Commons

Thanks, you're right. It was my mistake.--Trixt (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

re 'Hold on' note

Only bunnies are allowed to hop here

Hi Multichill - presume you mean those empty 'Avenues in ....' categories? If you're sure they'll fill, they can easily be re-made, but as they'd been lying empty for the best part of 2 months they didn't serve any useful purpose as of when I found them. I left the one for Avenues in UK (and added some files to it) even though that was also empty before today. - MPF (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:MPF#Hold on. Please don't hop talk pages. Multichill (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 21:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Please help replace this outdated license

Español: Yo no soy el autor. Las imágenes de símbolos de Galicia publicadas en el "Diario Oficial de Galicia" (DOG) están en el dominio público. Si las desean ustedes borrar, bórrenlas; puesto que yo no soy el autor, no me importa demasiado puesto que, además, si aparecen en el "Diario Oficial de Galicia" se admiten sin problemas en la Wikipedia gallega

All the simbols of Galicia are PD if the source is DOG (oficial publication of the government of Galicia)--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 20:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If you need help feel free to ask at Commons talk:Licensing or contact User:Zscout370.. Multichill (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
No, this is not my problem--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 21:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
You're barking up the wrong tree. Multichill (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't understand. If you want, you can delete these images. There are these images in gl.wp:

I don't want anything, I just ran a notification bot for Zscout370, so contact him. Multichill (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
No. Zscout370 don't speak spanish, portgal language or galician language (!!!). My english is very poor
Galego: Xamais sería quen de expresar o que tería que expresar
--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 21:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Marrovi

Only bunnies are allowed to hop here

yes, ok Ichange for this templete. See you! --Marrovi (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:Marrovi. Please don't hop talk pages. Multichill (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

COM:AN/V

I know that you are very experienced and rich in ideas in source categorization, please have an eye on Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism#JarektBot_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contributions.29. Thank you, --Martin H. (talk) 10:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Left a comment over there. Multichill (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Bot message

While I appreciate your message, I think your bot should leave messsages on the home project discussion page, especially if a note exists on the talk page. Is there a standard way to signal this and to instruct a bot to do this? --M7 (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about this message? That's a one time run for User:Zscout370. My bots only notify users on Commons talk pages. Multichill (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Okay then, thank you for your answer. --M7 (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Categories

Hello Multichill, thanks for advising, I was wondering how to deal with this issue... Djoehana (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


File:Wim_Delvoye.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Wim_Delvoye.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

PD template warnings

Please put PD template warnings to the original uploaders talk pages for files

but not on my talk page. See them in the description pages, ekz. for File:Kleiner Ameisenhügel.jpg it is de:Benutzer:TomK32. Maksim (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to do it. If you think this should be done, feel free to do it yourself. Multichill (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wim

Foto van Wim zelf

Hallo Multichill Op 5 jan 2010 heb ik een portretfoto van Wim de Bie die er nog niet was bij de pagina over hem ingezonden. Ik krijg na een mail van wiki een bevestigig dat de foto bij de pagina over Wim is geplaatst. Een paar dagen later kijk ik op de pagina van Wim de Bie zie ik niet mijn foto maar een foto door Wim zelf geupload op 6 januari vond ik vreemd gezien de mail van wiki maar mijn foto is nergens meer te vinden Ook bij mijn bijdrage's niet . Als ik de Bie intik bij zoeken vind ik nergens mijn foto terug, wel de foto van Wim hoe kan dit waar is mijn foto gebleven of doe ik iets verkeerd ?? 13 jan.2010 Roel1943 (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)roel1943

Hoi Roel, ik neem aan dat je het over http://www.flickr.com/photos/roel1943/4247464995/ hebt? Die kan ik niet op Commons vinden. Ik zal vanavond in OTRS kijken. Heb je wellicht een nummertje voor me? Maakt het zoeken wat makkelijker. Multichill (talk) 13:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Images of food by Cyclonebill to check

Hi Multichill

I came across that category and started categorizing some images. should I move them out of that category once I have added a category? or is there something else to check? Thanxs, Amada44 (talk) 09:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Once you found one or more categories, you can remove Category:Images of food by Cyclonebill to check. Thanks for helping out! Multichill (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Lots of images in "Images of food by Cyclonebill to check" have already quite good categories. It would save a lot of time if one could automatically sieve them out and remove them from that category? I have never checked out what bots can do but are the capable of doing something like that? Amada44 (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately that's quite hard to do. Multichill (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

shame. thanxs, though. --Amada44 (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

File:US_Army_52990_TIGR_allows_Soldiers_to_"be_there"_before_they_arrive.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:US_Army_52990_TIGR_allows_Soldiers_to_"be_there"_before_they_arrive.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

LX (talk, contribs) 14:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I deleted the image. Multichill (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

NowCommons tagging

He Multichill. Kwam gister één tegen waarbij de enwp pagina een {{permissionOTRS}} / {{ConfirmationOTRS}} tag had, en de Commons pagina niet. Een admin had de pagina al gedelete, maar het viel me toevallig op wegens een 2e image onder hetzelfde ticket. Kan de bot op zoiets van te voren checken ? TheDJ (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Zoals besproken op irc gaan we kijken of we wat aan en:User:MetsBot hebben. Multichill (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Photographic History of the Civil War Script

Multichill, I need the scripts for volumes 2 to 10 recreated for The Photographic History of the Civil War books to be batch uploaded. I had them and they got deleted. Please reply to my talk page. Thanks. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Problems with tl:cats

Hi Multichill, you told me that templated categories cause problems because all the regular categorization tools stop working. I do not know how the tools work; they seem to check the source code of the files to build the references, instead of accessing the created categories. Also I do not know how many tools are affected, and how difficult it may be to adjust them.
I see two different possibilities to heal that problem.

For a limited count of templates, it might be an option to tell the tool about the templates and their parameters, to add some coding to the tool for constructing the destination categories as if they were straight coded. All the templates as well as the many files may remain as the are.

The other possibilitiy requires several BOT runs to change all the many files using such a template; the categories created by the template are generated straight coded into the file, enabling the tools to recognize what they need. In a second step the template is altered not to create the categories, to avoid double categorizing. This means also that a general category change cannot be done any more by the template, it has to be performed by another BOT run. It also means that all the many files become changed to a larger size of source.

If I were able to write BOTs I would do that; at a first view it seems rather difficult to get the knowledge. Unfortunately I cannot even estimate how much work it means to skilled BOT writers to perform the required changes.
As an addition, "good categorization practic" should be stated somewhere that users find knowledge about the troubles it might cause, prior to their plannings and performings. -- sarang사랑 11:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sarang, if you know where you want the files, a bot can be used to put the files in these categories directly. I changed {{Rcat}} a little to make recursive substitution possible, see this example. Multichill (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply Roel1943

Hallo Multichill Het is idd die foto , inmiddels heb ik een mail gekregen van wiki met weer een bevestiging dat het portret inmiddels is geplaatst ,ik heb gekeken hij staat er nu bij. alleen bij mijn galerie ontbreekt hij nog . bedankt voor de medewerking gr Roel1943 (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)roel1943

Mooi dat de foto terecht is! Multichill (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality image

Hallo Multichill, ik zag net (ik log hier niet zo vaak in) dat je dat veel te grote diagram van mij voor Quality Image had genomineerd. Dat was een leuke verrassing, en vooral leuk om te zien dat het diagram daadwerkelijk wordt bekeken! Groet, Pbech (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Zoals ik al zei bij het eten: Ik vond het gewoon een leuk plaatje ;-) Multichill (talk) 08:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

User:BotMultichill, Category:IUCN Near Threatened species and CommonSense

Hello my friend,
I just saw that modification done by your bot that adds Category:IUCN Near Threatened species to images using CommonSense.
My problem is that I am trying to avoir IUCN cat on images:

  • species categories should be in the correct IUCN cat (here Category:Neochen jubata should be in Category:IUCN Near Threatened species)
    • but only through the {{IUCN}} template (Reason: allow us to run a bot to update IUCN id/threatLevel when IUCN changes its mind)
  • the images should only be in the species cat, not in the IUCN cat (Category:Neochen jubata here)
    (Reason1: the specimen is not threatened when its species (described by the species cat) is threatened)
    (Reason2: an image should not be in 2 cats (species cat & IUCN cat) if one cat (species cat) is in the other (IUCN cat))

Is there a way to avoid having Category:IUCN XXXXX species automaticaly added to images ?
Should I ask the guys in charge of Commons:Tools#CommonSense ?
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This should at least filter of the categories. Besides that, Commonsense should have put the image in Category:Neochen jubata. We have to talk with Duesentrieb about that. Multichill (talk) 08:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The commons-inline template (in use at en:Orinoco Goose) was added to the list of templates. Multichill (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Veena3.jpeg

Hi Multichill

I am new to Wikipedia and recently submitted my first article. I uploaded a photo to go with the article but filled out the form wrong and had indicated Own work. I would like to delete the photo from the Wikipedia Commons but have not been able to. I tried to follow the instructions but nothing has worked.

Could you please delete the photo Veena3.jpeg from Wikipedia Commons and let me know?

Thanks very much,

J.A. MacPhee (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Veena3.jpg. Multichill (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Probable copyvio

Hi. Could you take a look at the files uploaded by this user? I just deleted one of his new articles on no.wp due to copy violations, and I strongly belive that these pictures are taken from somewhere on the web. I haven't done a throughout search for them, though. Some of them are even so old that they can not be taken by this user. S/he can of course still have permision to upload them... 3s (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Two of the pictures are so far found on the web. [5] and [6]. I haven't found the rest yet. The user claims to have rights to the picture of the church, but has so far given no evidence to back this claim. Best wishes 3s (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, all look questionable. Should probably be nominated for deletion. Multichill (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The aerial photos certainly look like copyvios (the other one appears here), and at least one of the festival ones is also dodgy. As for the old photos, better beware possible newbybiting? It's perfectly feasible that the Solheim turists pic is a family one, as he says on the image's discussion page. You could perhaps ask him to submit a higher-res scan of it, or parts of it, as proof. The others look like archive photos from the library, and according to their pages there [7]. are owned by various people. He claims the library told him that all images are copyright-free. If so, that would be a useful source, though they are rather small. I can't find it confirmed on the library website, though, and there is a © sign bottom right of the archive search page. He's now uploading large quantities of these archive photos. SiGarb (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

AddCoordinates.js

Hello, just wanted to tell you of this edit. It's probably something that shouldn't happen too often. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That might happen when someone puts something rather strange in the page field here. Multichill (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Starr 080716-9415 Stictocardia tiliifolia.jpg

This and all images in this series are misidentified. The scientific name is Stictocardia beraviensis. I've changed the categories, but not the file names. I don't know if this can be done automatically. The real Stictocardia tiliifolia look llike this: Stictocardia tiliifolia. Ulf Eliasson (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You can tag the files with {{Rename|better name}} like i did here. Multichill (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User:FaleBot

Hello Multichill!

I have noticed that have recognized FaleBot as a bit problematic - as I do so, too. Well, this bot keeps on uploading images from it:wiki to Commons. Many of those images are duplicates or of problematic/not traceable origin without any categories. Such actions appear for me like spam. I do not want this bot to be closed because, the bot creator User:Fale, uses this bot for uploading images made by him, that's OK.

What do you think? --High Contrast (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Spam might not be the right word, but I certainly see questionable images in the uploads. The user is sure not following Commons:Moving to Commons. The user tries to help but I'm afraid he's doing more harm than good at the moment :-( Multichill (talk) 10:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. What's the next step? Will this bot be closed (occasionally)? --High Contrast (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
It should be blocked as the bot wasn't approved (see Commons:Bots/Requests#FaleBot). -- User:Docu at 11:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I asked the user to stop the bot (user was online at freenode). If the user continues a block would be appropriate. Let's continue at the bot request. I'll add a permalink to this thread over there. Multichill (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
As you may recall, I came across User:Fale a while ago and tried to point out to him that many of the images he was uploading were identical, or virtually so, and that the differences between most of them were so slight that it was pointless cluttering up the Commons with them! I suggested that he should simply choose the best exposure from each set and upload that. He seemed quite receptive, and I went through a raft of images and nominated them for removal. Although you suggested they be reinstated (perhaps you suspected I had a personal vendetta against him, which I don't), reason eventually prevailed and they were subsequently deleted. But he has obviously taken no notice, and continues to use Commons as his personal image library backup file! I know Commons has massive storage capacity, but surely there is a limit! SiGarb (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I think two things got mixed up here: The uploading of files from itwp to Commons and Fale uploading his own photo's. This request is about the uploading of files from itwp, not about False uploading his own photos. Multichill (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Bot uploading copyvios

Hey Multichill, isn't there some kind of human review before your bot uploads files here? The US army isn't always the best with copyright stuff. Or great descriptions. I hope there's not too many more files like this coming from there. :) Rocket000 (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Wtf, that is not supposed to happen. Just did a test run a while back. Will add some more strict author checking. It's a shame these army guys don't use the virin system :-( Multichill (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deutsche Fotothek

Hi. Commons:Batch uploading/Geograph is great, but what about DF? Is further uploading of DF images currently planned? Thank you, Nemo 08:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Haven't heard about it for a while. Would be nice to continue. If I know more I'll leave a note at the talk page. Multichill (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Liverpool

Hi could you tell me who your deciding which cat to put the Images in. The ones uploaded to Category:West Derby are from all over the place, in Liverpool.--JIrate (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If you pick an image, you'll find a big yellow template. It contains a couple of links, one of the links goes to a tool to give the name of a location based on it's coordinates. That's where I get it from. Multichill (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Ta--JIrate (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
All I get when I click on the links is some XML?--JIrate (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Take for example File:Church of the Latter Day Saints - geograph.org.uk - 37493.jpg, this will give you http://ws.geonames.org/extendedFindNearby?lat=53.425736&lng=-2.920961. It goes from big (Earth) to small (West Derby). Multichill (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok get it now. It seems to be a bit enusastic putting places in Dingle and West Derby but there is always and extra one after it. The open street map seems far more accurate than GeoNames.--JIrate (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)