User talk:Multichill/Archives/2020/October

Reply

Goedenmiddag Multichill- Regarding the discussion (now closed) at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Images requiring attribution, I was responding there to your immediately preceding comment: "...custom attribution licenses ... should be changed to use Attribution only license". If that means actually changing the licenses (as opposed to just recat), I'd be concerned for the reason stated. Perhaps I misunderstood?  JGHowes  ^talk 22:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

General exclusion of e-mail notifications for bot changes: Bots cause a lot of e-mails

Hallo Multichill, die Tätigkeit des Bots BotMultichill ist aus meiner Sicht sehr wichtig und hilfreich. Danke dafür. Gleichzeitig würde ich mir wünschen, dass ich über die Änderungen nicht per E-Mail informiert werden würde. Dabei möchte ich aber nicht grundsätzlich auf Benachrichtigungen verzichten. Ich weiß, dass ist ein Spagat. Hättest Du eine Idee, wie das möglich wäre? Danke für Deine Arbeit. Viele Grüße --Molgreen (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

PS: Eine ähnliche Anfrage habe ich hier gestellt. --Molgreen (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

importing licenses

Hi, Multichill! Thanks for your advising. It was my mistake, by copy-pasting the info from some other importings from gl.wiki. Certainly, I removed the Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 for Template:GFDL, that the same user applied in other pictures. I'll check the other transfers.

Greetings! --Estevoaei (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Estevoaei#Lost license in import. Multichill (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to present your bot

Hello, I work in the Foundation's GLAM & Culture team. We're hosting office hours about Structured Data on Commons on Monday 19 October 3.30-4.30pm UTC and Tuesday 20 October 11am-12pm UTC. Are you available at either of these times to share the work that your bot is doing to add structured data to files on Commons? (FRomeo (WMF) (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC))

@FRomeo (WMF): sorry for the late reply. I'm in a bit of a busy period at work so I wasn't sure if it would fit in. I'm afraid it doesn't. My Monday is already packed and I have to work the night too to do some changes. Adding this would be a bit too much. Multichill (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Instructions for ogg pronunciation

Hello @BotMultichillT: and thank you for taking care of our files. I have been doing some recording audio at Category:Greek pronunciation. I see that you have added in almost all files example: Adding structured data: copyright, source & author. If I am to record more, is there something I should copypaste and add whenever I use the UploadWizard? Do you have any instructions for me? Or is it something robots do, not editors? Thank you. Sarri.greek (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sarri.greek: nothing new yet for new uploads. The bot monitors new uploads and will update these files too. In the future this might change, but I don't think in the near future. Multichill (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit-War

Hi!

Could you please make your robot so, that it doesn't edit-war with real users?

Habitator terrae 🌍 22:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Habitator terrae: don't remove it. That's basically vandalism. Multichill (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

No, please read creativecommons:by-sa/4.0/legalcode#s3a3. You have to remove it. Habitator terrae 🌍 09:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The bot merely converts what is in wikitext to another format. Nothing changes in the attribution. So no, this does not apply. Multichill (talk) 09:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't change, that you have to remove any attribution-information requested by me, to the extent reasonable practicable (of course it is because I myself can do it). Obvious it isn't needed, that the information changes. Habitator terrae 🌍 09:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

You don't get it. I'm not adding anything so nothing to remove unless of course you want to have something removed from the wikitext. Multichill (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

You copy the information to another database. And I want to have this information removed from _this_ database (not the wikitext-database). Habitator terrae 🌍 09:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't copy it to another database. All revisions are part of the same database (the Wikimedia Commons database). You might want to read Commons:Structured data. Actually the structured data and the wikitext are stored in the same revision using a concept called multi content revisions. Multichill (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, than I clarify my request: I want the doubled attribtution-information (formated as Structured Data) removed. Habitator terrae 🌍 10:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

That's not going to happen. You stated what you want, but not why you want this. Might be based on incorrect assumptions. Multichill (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't have to clarify why I want this. It is my right. Habitator terrae 🌍 10:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

LoL. He´s got you there Multichill. "If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) to the extent reasonably practicable" - I want the same for my stuff. You could program a bot to do that, you know, just to make it "reasonably practicable". Alexpl (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• There is nothing to remove in the extand the content have been added by the copyright holder themselve, if someone wants another attribution, e.g. if they change their username, then such a request can be legitimate, but otherwise I don't see the issue. "Licensors may request removal of attribution", indeed but there is nothing in this specific edition that have not been added and claimed by the copyright hoder themself. The version that Habitator terrae wants to be restored includes exactly the same attribution than in the version edited by the BOT therefore this request don't fall within the scope of "Licensors may request removal of attribution". Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  You have a missunderstanding of the legaltext (your link only go to a wiki, with disclaimer because of incompletness):

  It clearly say that this is about "any [required] information" "supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material". And obvious this is only the case if the information "have been added [=supplied] by the copyright holder [=Licensor] themselve". An interpretation to exept this case therefore leads ad absurdum.

  Habitator terrae 🌍 21:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  • "your link only go to a wiki": this wiki is linked from the relevant section within the "Frequently Asked Questions", this link is provided in order to help the readers to understand the legaltext. It is a fact that you and me disagrees about the one of us both who have misunderstood this text, whether it is the legal part, the FAQ or the wiki. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  I don't say, you missunderstands the consequences of the Wiki-Text (in fact I didn't read it carefully), but it isn't complete (it's intention is to clarify the differences between the licenses, not primary the license itself).

  My whole point is, that your assumption (not basing on the Linked Text) literally disagree with the wording of the legaltext (as cited above). Habitator terrae 🌍 23:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  The only thing about you that is used by the Structured Data is your username, or maybe do you require too that all your images to be exempt from adding structured data regardless of whatether the data are? this username have been provided by you and have been provided by you as an attribution, and as far I see you don't ask that this attribution be changed, otherwise I suggest you a username rename request, but I feel that is not what you ask for. Therefore if you don't ask your attribution to be changed then you ask nothing. How this works: your username is not indexed in an external database, neither in another Wikimedia project excepted by your own will. See mw:Extension:Wikibase Repository, the Structured Data works with a sofwate extension but the data is still here: "Wikibase Repository allows you to use your wiki as a structured data repository". Sorry but I fail to see the point of your request if not to require just for the principle of to require. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  Furthermore all your contributions and all the public logs that concern you and your username are already stored in databases, and are already publicly accessible [1], [2], [3], that is this way that we can see your accounts, your contributions, ect... Structured Data for Commons is just a tool to structure locally a part of this data that have already beeing made availble by you, me and the other users. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  Two points, you missunderstand:

  1. creativecommons:by-sa/4.0/legalcode#s3a3 isn't about change anything, it's about remove something ^{(identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated), a copyright notice, a notice that refers to this Public License, a notice that refers to the disclaimer of warranties, a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable)} which is "supplied", in other words "provided", by me with the licensed material. And it's my right to govern this, because of my right about my own information and attribution.
  2. And my will is, that the information put in this (local) structure (and further this structure is licensed under CC0). This tool, to structure locally, make it obvious easier to use this information. And this is my own information, I can decide wether remove it or not, particularly, if this platform accepts "CC BY-SA 4.0".

  Of course this only applies if it is reasonable practically; But this is the case, because to write a script, which determines a bot couldn't make edit-war with real users, is as a matter of course.

  Habitator terrae 🌍 11:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• No you don't want we remove anything, as the version you want to restore contains the exact same attribution in the wikitext. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  Of course this is the same information, if it is not the information suplied by me to the licensed work, the whole paragraph wouldn't apply.

  And I want you to remove this (it must be a duppled information, in the other case it wouldn't apply), from the other structure. If the edit don't make any change, its "exact same" to where and how the information could be found, the adding of structured data would be senseless. Habitator terrae 🌍 15:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Also you are confusing something, we do not reuse your file, it is you who published the file here. And here, no, you can not decide what you want by decree. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  Of course you're using the file under the terms of the license I published it (reusing isn't needed). And of course I could decide, what I want; This the definition of free will. And, if the contract about publishing (the license) say, you must do some defined thing, if I want and a further condition apply (it is reasonable practicable); you must to this, if I decide I want this and the further condition apply . Habitator terrae 🌍 15:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  No, if I say here in this talk page that the attribution of the file File:Fotoausflug Kiel - Westensee 2020-06-49.jpg is: Habitator terrae, you can not prevent it, because 1/ you don't own this talk page 2/ you made it publicly available and this info is still true 3/ I'm absolutly not reusing your file when doing this. You don't own more the Structured area of the file page concerned that you own this talk page. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  I couldn't prevent it, but I could let it remove, because Wikimedia is using the file and therefore obligated by the license to remove it if requested (only if it reasonable practicable). Habitator terrae 🌍 07:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

"I'm not adding anything", is fully bullshit, because your bot obvious disagrees with you: "Adding structured data". Habitator terrae 🌍 14:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

370 MB te groot voor upload? Decretum Gratiani.

Beste Multichill,

Misschien weet jij raad. Deed net upload van een mooi verlucht middeleeuws juridisch manuscript File:Gratiani decretum cum glosa - Decretum Gratiani with Commentary by Bartholomew of Brescia - Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, BSB Clm 23552.pdf van de World Digital Library, 315 MB. Blijkt toch al snel dat de bron Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, München, betere plaatjes zonder blokjes heeft in bestand van 370 MB. Maar bij "Een nieuwe versie van dit bestand uploaden" krijg ik foutmelding "Het bestand is groter dan de instelling van de server toestaat." Multichill weet raad? Anders in twee stukken hakken? (Directe upload vanaf die Beierse URL niet toegestaan uiteraard.) Dank en groeten, Hansmuller (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hansmuller: Ik zou het onder een nieuwe naam doen. Is denk ik ook beter om gewoon twee versies te hebben. Dan zal je zien dat het waarschijnlijk wel werkt. Komt door chunked uploads. Multichill (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Geograph

Hi! What is the status? Do you need anything or are you ready to go? --MGA73 (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: sorry, your message got a bit lost in the clutter. Let's see:

• Wales is still being completed on OpenStreetMap. Wanted to give that a bit more time so that the coverage increases. Should check what the status is. See Commons:Geograph_Britain_and_Ireland/Reverse_geocoding#Wales. If it's more than half I could probably start.
• Wanted to spend a bit more time on sorting out User:GeographBot/Tags.
• A bit of pushback on Commons_talk:Batch_uploading/Geograph#Almost_ready_to_upload. Have to check if everything is covered now.

So getting there :-) Multichill (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Busy busy… Yeah it is a huge project you are working on. It seems hard to get everyone to agree on what the best way is. For example I like categories with like 100-200 images so it is easy to look at a bunch of photos and find the one I like the most. Other users like to categorize everything so there is perhaps 30-40 categories with around 5 files in each. Perhaps tags are better than categories because then we can just add tags like Ireland and churches and then we will get all files that matches those tags. Well who knows... Perhaps one day... :-)

Adding/using the extra location information that some users want will slow down the bot. But will it ruin something important? It seems it can take months to get a bot approved because of smaller things. For example I wonder why this one about license migration of GFDL can't just be approved. So perhaps it is faster to just include the info than to keep discussing it.

I have been looking at the tags. I think they are hard to match. At least the ones at the top. But that is probably the reason they are still there lol. If the tag can't be matched to anything what will happen? Will it be skipped or will it be added in description field or somewhere else? And do you think it is better to have no match than choosing one that is perhaps only 70 % good? --MGA73 (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: Wales is nearly done in OSM (700 out of 900). I'll puzzle a bit more with the tags. If a tag isn't matched (or just has a comment) it will just be skipped. I'm planning on completing that page before I start bulk uploading.

I already added the extra location lookup and used it in the last uploads. Bit slower, but that is not a problem. I'll have to look what the other open points are, but I first want to finish the tags. Multichill (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Tag, you are it! :-) Perhaps you could have a look and move the ones you think are done? Shitty job I know but it is a bit confusing now. Perhaps make a heading for those we know can't match? --MGA73 (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Multichill: are you happy with the tags or you want more done? --MGA73 (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Probably want to finish that page before firing up the new bot. Might have a shot at it this weekend depending on the weather. Multichill (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I finished what I could on User:GeographBot/Tags. Sometimes its a mess on Geograph and sometimes we just not have a good category that I could find. (The topic on my talk page was in the archive so I replied it here) --MGA73 (talk) 10:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Mogelijk copyright

Since you know your way around on Commons please have a look at File:Rapenburgconcert 2002.jpg and File:Zandvoort_.jpg. Possible copyright? --VanBuren (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@VanBuren: ik denk het ook. Beiden zijn al verwijderd en de paar andere uploads betwijfel ik ook of het wel eigen werk is. Ziet er meer uit als een stel oude foto's die door een scanner zijn gehaald. Multichill (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Weet jij~Multichill ook waarom deze als bewerkingssamenvatting "Cross-wiki upload from nl.wikipedia.org" hebben? Ze zijn nooit lokaal geupload, en ik meende dat je om gebruik te maken van de uploadfunctie in de VE eerst 10 gewone uploads op Commons moet hebben gedaan? Maar misschien is dat laatste uitgezet? Ciell (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ciell: geen idee. Ik had die cross wiki dingen wel eens eerder gezien, maar wist niet dat het uit VE kwam. Zit blijkbaar geen limiet meer op want het account is nog geen uur oud bij de eerste upload. Multichill (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Het is mijn aanname dat het door de VE komt. Volgens mij hadden we in 2007/2008 een soortgelijke omschrijving toen we alle bestanden van nlwiki hebben overgezet naar Commons, maar deze bestanden hebben geen geschiedenis op nl-wikipedia. VE leek me een logische andere optie, omdat je dan voor een upload nl-wikipedia niet verlaat, maar het via de SUL gedaan wordt. Ciell (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Tijdvraagje

Hierboven onder de kop "Mogelijk copyright" stelde ik een vraag (dank voor het antwoord) waarop jij reageert met de time stamp: "15:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)" (zoals die op mijn computer toont). Kijk ik in de geschiedenis van je bijdragen dan staat er echter "2020-10-18T17:12:27‎". De twee uur verschil zal iets met tijdzones te maken hebben, maar ligt dat nu aan jouw instellingen of aan de mijne? --VanBuren (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@VanBuren: tijdzones is altijd feest. Ik heb in mijn voorkeuren de tijdzone op "Europe/Amsterdam" staan dus voor mij veranderd het automatisch mee (zoals vannacht). Als ik onderteken dan is dat automatisch in UTC dus nu een uur ipv twee uur verschil, de historie zie je in de lokale tijd. Lokale tijd is nu 16:31 dus dat zal je ook in de historie zien als je in dezelfde tijdzone zit als ik. Multichill (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Dank voor je uitleg. Ik zie, nu ik erop let, dat ik dezelfde tijdzone heb ingesteld, en dat nu ook in mijn voorkeuren hetzelfde verschil van een uur staat aangegeven. Ik ga er maar geen aandacht meer aan schenken. --VanBuren (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Inception date loss of accuracy?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T266407

For example, this file I uploaded: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Northstar_California_Prosser_2.jpg

Your bot copied the date, but lost the hour:minute:second, and just put in precision day. Is this intentional? If so, why? Leijurv (talk) 04:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Leijurv: That's because of phab:T57755. I left a note, let's see if we can get that moving again. Multichill (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Things were getting mixed up so made phab:T266407 instead. Multichill (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Multichill: Oh dear, does this mean your bot will need to "take a second pass" over every file uploaded ever? Perhaps best to wait until it can be done properly in one pass, I've gotten hundreds upon hundreds of watchlist emails 😹😹😹😹😹 Leijurv (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Could you please lend me your bot for....

• ... fixing the images in Category:A._A._van_Achterberg_Collection to use only Template:AvanAchterberg, per the mentioned release in the email of the rightsholder in OTRS? There's now a double license and a double OTRS tag on the file pages. Ciell (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
• Category:F._van_der_Kraaij_Collection should only have Template:FvdKraaij, these also have the extra attribution template;
• Category:L._A._van_Es should only have Template:L.A. van Es (double license/double OTRS-template)

Structured data

Hi, I've been seeing your bot add structured data to files I uploaded. I've just added some structured data to this file (the author of the photograph) and I'm not sure if I did it correctly. Would you mind taking a look? Buiquangtu (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Buiquangtu: we usually use inception (P571) for the date. I've updated the file. Multichill (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Do you have anything for the place where the photo was taken? Buiquangtu (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

......................A barnstar for you Multichill (Structured data) great work *(how to thank a bot)*

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions ..Multichill.. Great job & cool bot !!

how many edits does this bot make a minute....???? just wondering...?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.155.14.60 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 23 October 2020‎ (UTC)

Thank you. You can see the edit speeds at http://commons.wikiscan.org/?menu=live&date=24&list=users&sort=edit&filter=all . Currently one bot is at around 400 edits/minute and the other around 250 edits/minute. That's about 1 million edits per day. Multichill (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Multichill: Perhaps also leave the link to the page where you have listed the progress of structured data :-) --MGA73 (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Found it: User:Multichill/Structured data progress almost 50M now. --MGA73 (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Datumweergave

Als je vindt dat ik je lastig val laat het aub weten, ik heb soms (zelden) vragen waarvan ik niet weet waar ik ze kan stellen. Het gaat o.a. om File:Wim Verbeke.jpg. Bij de omschrijving staat dat er een datum/date ingevuld moet worden. Ik zie verschillende invulling daarvan: datum van de weergave (bv voor een schilderij van eeuwen geleden), datum wanneer een foto is gemaakt, of datum van uploaden. Doet het er überhaupt toe? --VanBuren (talk) 10:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

copyrighted vs copyrighted, dedicated to...

Hi, is it on purpose that the BOT added two value for copyright status (P6216)? Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Christian Ferrer: mistake in the code which I fixed, but for which I still need to do a bit of clean up. Thanks for pointing it out. Multichill (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)