Jump to content

User talk:Krd

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Salim e-a ebrahim (talk | contribs) at 08:25, 17 August 2014 (I will try to obtain the commercial permission). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello from Tucoxn

Thanks for spending some time chatting about your bot, Benutzer:Dateientlinkerbot. Here's my talk page: en:User talk:Tucoxn. You may want to read the following pages for some info on the small amount of progress I've made so far:

I'm looking forward to collaborating more. Danke! Tucoxn (Diskussion) 14:53, 21. Jan. 2014 (CET)

Hi. Would you please send me text files with the code or let me know how I can access it. There is a perl programmer who is willing to help. Thanks! Tucoxn (Diskussion) 12:31, 24. Jan. 2014 (CET)
Maybe be have some minor misunderstanding. I thought our agreement was that you start the necessary discussions and write down the job details while I expand the bot code accordingly. I think I don't need any coding help, but I need detailed description what to do, as my experience at enwiki is limited. As far as I see, we can start with test edits at the end of next week. --Krd (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't know you were interested in taking such a strong ownership of this task. Let's go with option "a" in your e-mail. I get the impression that your Dateientlinkerbot bot on de.wikipedia is working fine. I think what would be useful is a bot that accomplishes removal of instances of deleted files in articles (not templates, user-space, or others) is what is needed -- I think that is what Dateientlinkerbot is doing (am I correct?). The bot should leave a detailed log that a human can check (to see if some files can be replaced or if deletion is simply the best option). The log should include:
  1. The name of the file removed;
  2. What article it was removed from;
  3. The date-time-group (DTG) for the removal;
  4. If the file was ever on en.wp, Commons, or if it was never uploaded;
  5. Otherwise, whether the file was on en.wp or Commons.
  6. The DTG for when the file was deleted;
  7. The editor that deleted the file.
  8. Other rationale for the deletion: copyright violation, deletion discussion, no license since (date)....
Otherwise, I think the comments being left by Dateientlinkerbot are good and something like those should be used for the bot on en.wp. In addition, I understand that having some lag time between the file deletion (from Commons or en.wp) or an editor adding bad filename to an article is a good thing -- you're probably aware of this, though. Also, although I'm trying to have WP:HOTLINKed files handled through an edit filter, it might be useful for the bot to be able to pick these out as well. I've got this page on my watchlist now so communication can move a bit quicker. Thanks! - tucoxn\talk 01:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see:
Please also put User:Filedelinkerbot/restored files on your watchlist. The bot will report files that reappear.
Regarding your list, point 5 seems to be not applicable as we are talking about files only that are deleted on Commons (if I'm not mistaken).
Up to my experience it is recommended to unlink deleted files immediately because otherwise manual delinking occurs more often than undeleted files have to be reinserted. This seems to be not too much work, and I can do this myself.
I stopped the bot for now; please verify the edits and let me know your thoughts. If all is well, we can start with a bot flag request. --Krd (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. This looks like a good bunch of first edits. I suppose it's ok for the bot to make these 10 edits (they're all good and constructive edits) without being approved but I don't know for sure. I've watchlisted the page you recommended. I also made a couple edits to the bot's user page -- I hope you find them constructive. You also should add stop buttons to the bot's user page (similar to User:MBisanzBot, see WP:BOTCONFIG). In addition, you should also eventually add {{User bot owner|Filedelinkerbot}} to your user page.
There are a few small things:
  1. The comment says "Bot: Removing Commons:File:Gerard Fowke.jpg (de)...." This should read "en" not "de". It looks like this got fixed in the later edits.
  2. Why were the edits to Fula people and List of World War 1 memorials and cemeteries in Verdun marked minor (1 and 2)?
  3. Also the edit to List of World War 1 memorials and cemeteries in Verdun removed several spaces not related to or near the removed Commons file. This also happened in the edit to Funeral, and others. Although this wouldn't be a bad thing in normal editing, the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) may see it as Filedelinkerbot overstepping its bounds. I know this sort of thing was a problem for other efforts to automatically remove deleted files (see WP:COSMETICBOT).
  4. I suggest rewording the standard comment to: Bot: Removing Commons:File:{{1}} (en). It was deleted on Commons by User:{{2}}. ({{3}}). "1" and "3" are good and would remain as is. I suggest deleting "as" and rewording from "has been" to "was", which is shorter (and might be a bit more grammatically correct). What is done under "(en)" is good. Also, I suggest including a link to the Commons userpage of the deleter in "2", which might avert some questions from editors asking Filedelinkerbot or you (on your talk pages) why certain files were deleted or removed from articles -- this happened a lot to KylieTastic.
Regarding the log on wmflabs, I think it's too sparse. The info included in the comments should be in the log, not just available though a click.
Regarding point 5 from the other day, this must have been a miscommunication. Let's just have Filedelinkerbot deal with Commons for now and expand if and as necessary.
Although I think your reasoning about unlinking deleted files immediately (Gerard Fowke.jpg was a 15 minute time gap, which might be good, if not too short) is good, I need to do more research and get back to you about the lag time. I think there is some established best practice on the lag time for making these sorts of automated edits. Thanks! - tucoxn\talk 23:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A couple additional things to check off:
  1. Does Filedelinkerbot interpret the {{Bots}} template (see WP:BOTCONFIG)?
  2. Also, does Filedelinkerbot honor the {{inuse}} template (see WP:BOTCONFIG) and similarly the {{GOCEinuse}} template?
Thanks. - tucoxn\talk 00:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi tucoxn. Please feel free to edit the bot user page as you like, including the addition of a stop button.
I changed the edit summary wording accordingly and turned off the empty line removal.
The bot does already handle the bots and inuse templates. GOCEinuse has been added.
The points "set bot flag or not" and "set minor edit flag or not" are to be discussed, and I'm open for any concensus. The current setup for dewiki is: set bot flag and minor flag if files are removed from galleries only, don't set both otherwise. The idea behind is that those edits shall not be hidden from the watchlists as necessary images are removed and editors shall replace them manually. Please advise.
The log file itself contains all necessary information, and the web interface can be improved accordingly. I'd prefer to delay this a bit, If you don't mind.
The lag time is the most complicated point of the whole story, as the bot currently does not support a delay. CommonsDelinker does wait some time, which is based on the assumption that once in a while files get deleted and immediately restored to clean up the version history. Up to my experience this does not happen often and is no real problem.
Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you. --Krd (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Krd. Thanks for your responses.
I think I have answers regarding the bot flag and the minor flag. It looks like the bot should never use the minor flag since it's kind of removing content in an article (see Wikipedia:Minor edit#When not to mark an edit as a minor edit). It looks like the bot should always use the bot flag and isn't supposed to have a choice (see WP:BOTFLAG) but this isn't as clear; perhaps this will be cleared up in the approval process.
Thanks for the info on the log file and the web interface; it's fine to delay changing that.
I've been advised by a former member of the Bot Approval Group that a lag time of 1-2 hours would be good for this bot, specifically for the reasons that CommonsDelinker has a built-in wait time. Your experience in this area is also valuable. Perhaps there is some middle ground.
I'll update the bot user page with a stop button. I think the admin block button is the best option.
Let me know what you thing about the lag tome and my response to the bot flag question. Thanks! - tucoxn\talk 02:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest we put up a list of pros and cons for each points bot flag and lag time, maybe on the bots talk page? For the bot flag I don't habe any strong opionion; for the lag time I'm quite sure that we can invalidate any objections against a zero lag time, maybe within a trial period. --Krd (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to go with your suggestion about the lag time. Perhaps this will get ironed out during the approval process and after the trial period. Regarding the bot flag, perhaps we're not on the same page. As policy currently stands on en.wp, all approved bots will have the bot flag turned on. I'm rather sure we don't have a choice about this. Under "Information" in this 2013 Request for Comment on the bot flag, you'll see that historically on en.wp all bot edits were hidden from recent changes but now they can optionally show up in recent changes, making it less likely that bot edits will be hidden or overlooked by recent change patrollers. (You'll also notice that the discussion didn't get many comments!) At Special:ListGroupRights, you can see the user rights granted to bots (i.e. users with the bot flag) on en.wp, which includes some useful rights (i.e. noratelimit and apihighlimits. If you agree about the bot flag, I guess we're ready to request the trial at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. Let me know if you want me to look over the request before you transclude it (i.e. add {{BRFA|Filedelinkerbot|Open}} to the request page). - tucoxn\talk 09:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are getting me wrong: I don't have any problem with setting the bot flag at those edits. I already changed the code accordingly. I will prepare the BRFA later today. --Krd (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Filedelinkerbot If you have any additions, please go ahead an edit the request page. --Krd (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the request for approval. I made a bunch of changes, which you should edit as you see fit. It's probably ready to go. One thing I noticed is the statement, "Necessary modifications to meet en.wikipedia requirements have been made." This is accurate but we may want to consider detailing what those modifications were. On the other hand, detailing each modification would take lots of time and space and it might be better to wait for this to come up in the discussion (it probably will). Similarly, we may want to say that a log of the bot's actions is available on wmflabs. Thanks! - tucoxn\talk 21:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be sure you noticed this. Filedelinkerbot is approved for trial (30 edits). - tucoxn\talk 14:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is now flagged and live. Please watch and let me know about problems on the bot's talk page. Thank you! --Krd 16:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual high five!

A Barnstar!
Bot accepted... high five!
Congratulations on getting Filedelinkerbot accepted. I enjoyed collaborating with you and want to give you a virtual high five! - tucoxn\talk 21:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some Commons deletions missed by Filedelinkerbot

Hi. It seems like Filedelinkerbot is working well but I noticed a few files it missed over the past couple days. I was wondering if you notice a pattern in these missed files. I only looked in files that had to be removed on 24 and 25 February. The dates deleted, posted by KylieTastic in the edit summaries, are correct — I checked using Wiki File Helper. You'll notice that some files that were missed showed up in several articles:

Thanks! - tucoxn\talk 00:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are still several small issue to be addressed, and the DYK is one new I wasn't aware of, but there are also some problems with infoboxes which need some regular expression tuning. At least all edits of CommonsDelinker in article namespace are ones my bot didn't catch, and I'll need some time for the final fixing. I'm on it. --Krd 17:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, do you think we should extent the bot at template namespace for icons in navigation boxes etc.? --Krd 17:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, just thought I'd point to an issue (may not be fixable) Filedelinkerbot removed 10 files from Delta Force Paintball but missed one I think maybe because it used percent formatting Delta_Force_%27Space_Warz%27_Paintball.jpg - not a huge issue, only comes up 1 in a thousand or more. KylieTastic (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I'm currently not having all combinations of possible character representation implemented. In this special cases it had not helped anyway, as the gallery tags would have been removed, but not the surplus headline. There is some more work to be done to make it perfect. --Krd 05:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
Good work on the bot - It's really good to have some automation on this task, as the manual grind was getting to be a bit annoying. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Filedelinkerbot working on templates...

Last week or so, you asked if Filedelinkerbot should be extended to the template namespace for icons in navigation boxes and other things. I've been considering this and I don't think it's necessary. First of all, there aren't many templates with missing files. See Category:Templates with missing files: there are only about 12 pages listed. Also templates don't get added to that category often. In addition, sometimes broken images are on protected templates, which the bot couldn't edit.... All of these things amount to a very small margin of improvement for the large amount of bot coding that would be necessary. Finally, I think this proposal has a chance of being rejected by the BAG because template construction is so complex, especially with the implementation of WP:Lua. Your thoughts? - tucoxn\talk 04:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I added template support in the meantime. I see a lot of error messages from the bot where it is unable to unlink in the article because the file is in a navigation bar, and I'm getting too many errors at the moment to keep up with processing all of them manually. Having template namespace included, the bot does at least purge the template, too, so that it gets listed at the missing-files page earlier. There has currently no template edit been made by the bot.
I hope I find some minutes this week to code a few more infobox and {{gallery}} cases. --Krd 05:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purging articles that have repaired templates might help. I'm not sure if this is clear. This is something we should consider discussing in greater depth. Thanks! - tucoxn\talk 09:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would help is if the bot could make null edits to all articles that have a certain transcluded template. For example, I just fixed Template:Seremban Line, because the name of an image in that template was changed (the file was moved to a different name on Commons). After repairing the template, I need to go to all the articles that used that template and make WP:null edits so they don't appear in Category:Articles with missing files. It would be great if Filedelinkerbot had a "transcluded template null edit request page" (or something with a similar title): someone could list a template there and the bot would find that articles used that template and make null edits to those articles. MadmanBot, which does text copyright violation analysis, has a manual request page at User:MadmanBot/manual. Your thoughts? - tucoxn\talk 21:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Making null edits to all articles that us a deleted image which couldn't be unlinked is already being done. This is what I wanted to say above, where I mistakenly spoke about purging the _template_ (which actually seems to be nonsense, I meant the _article_). Sorry for the confusion. --Krd 07:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I didn't explain this clearly enough. Let's say we have an example template called [[Template:Foo]], which contains a red-linked image. [[Template:Foo]] is transcluded on to 1000 different articles. An editor fixes the [[Template:Foo]] but the 1000 articles would show the red-linked image until they get a null edit (I think I'm correct about this). It would be useful if Filedelinkerbot could make null edits to all the 1000 articles in the following list [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Foo&hidelinks=1&hideredirs=1]], and the red-linked images on those 1000 articles would go away. Does that make sense? - tucoxn\talk 10:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this is a totally different story, and, if I'm not mistaken, is processed internally by MediaWiki, although as a low-prio database operation which can cause some delay depending on database load. If you can prove that this doesn't work, we could investigate further. --Krd 15:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Ribbon International

This revert doesn't make sense? [1] --NeilN talk to me 17:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NeilN. I don't know. I just reverted the image removal by the bot because the reason no longer exists. If there is another reason to remove the file from the article, please go ahead. Thank you. --Krd 04:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rapid transit system in various Cities of --India-- 2014-06-02 07-36.jpg et al.

@krd i just added a image on rapid transit in india page coz tht page urgently need an image but every time added the image it was removed by @Filedelinkerbot so i wanna ask why @Filedelinkerbot removed the image i added! Thnk you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudhir7777 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sudhir7777. Please see commons:Commons:Licensing. You may not grab images from the internet without permission of the copyright holder. --Krd 09:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Filedelinkerbot missed a deleted file on Commons

Hello. I noticed that the bot missed the deletion of File:Dennis Trillo pic.jpg from Commons. The file had been in the article Dennis Trillo. It was deleted as a result of commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Doubledutch781 and the file was deleted on 30 March 2014 by Commons:User:Ellin Beltz. I fixed that article today but the file was deleted several months ago. Thanks! - tucoxn\talk 03:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I installed a more robust section of the bot code recently, which, when all infobox specials fail, simply removes any occurence of the plain file name. All unlinks which still fail are going to be listed at User:Filedelinkerbot/failed unlinks (with a lot of false positives from navigation bar cases). If you want to help cleaning this maintenance page, you're welcome. --Krd 07:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling me about the User:Filedelinkerbot/failed unlinks page. Maybe you added something about it to the bot's page and I missed it. I'm watching it now and I'll see what links there I can clean up. I've been cleaning some templates of red-linked photos lately and I noticed KylieTastic‎‎ is also back doing some editing. I'll see if we've hit some of these pages already. Thanks again! - tucoxn\talk 21:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Yes I'm semi back. Although it was a bit depressing that Category:Articles with missing files had grown to over 2000 after clearing it, I have to tip my hat to the bot that has really kept it from growing at the massive rate it was before. It's much easier to clear back down. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File re-linker?

Hi Krd. While going through red-linked files, I noticed an article called 430th Maryland General Assembly. If you look in this article's history, you'll notice that KylieTastic and I updated several image names after an edit by Sfan00 IMG regarding fixing an image redirect. I believe the images KylieTastic and I fixed were broken because of broken redirects from file re-naming on Commons. Do you know of a bot that updates file names on the wikipedia projects after a move or re-name was done on Commons? Thanks! - tucoxn\talk 11:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know one can instruct Commonsdelinker to replace file usage, but this normally isn't necessary because redirects shall not be deleted at Commons, even more if they are in use. --Krd 17:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted pictures: A mistake or not?

Hello Krd. I just discovered that dozens of the pictures I had made for wikibook have disappeared from commons. The history states that you removed them. Is it a mistake, or is it intended? In the last case, you would be kind explaining why you removed them, as I did not receive any message about this, and I have no idea of what could have been offending with these pictures. An example: [2] is an article (in French) where I explain how to draw a Mandelbrot set in JavaScript with ImageJ. And just after the script I posted the image build by the script. I think it useful that the reader can see what the script makes, just after the script. And I really wonder what can be offending with the Mandelbrot set...

Alain Busser (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alain. User:JackPotte recently transferred a lot of files from french projects to Commons, and some of them have been deleted by me because they are not correctly licensed for Commons. Please get in touch with JackPotte to rectify the situation. Thank you. --Krd 16:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Filedelinkerbot Error

Hey Krd,

First mistake I've seen the bot make, so not a big issue, but I can see it could happen again. However fixing may not be easy depending on the code :/

Problem was that the file name to remove was the end of another valid file name - This is the edit: [3]

Luckily it should always cause a problem that gets flagged on Articles with missing files - so should get easily caught and fixed

Just thought I'd let your know. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KylieTastic. You're right, this is a real mistake. I made a minor change now to address this, i.e. not removing the raw file name if there was already a successful more complicated match before. This may lead to more missed unlinks, so we should watch this for a while. Thank you. --Krd 06:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aga khan - photo - 'In Divine Company'

Hi krd 

  File:Aga khan - photo - 'In Divine Company', The Ottawa Citizen, 28 February 2014.jpg - provided link to copyright permission page of Canadian PM's office.

The photograph is the property of the Canadian Prime Minister's Office. Please see this and other photos of the same occasion at http://pm.gc.ca/eng/photo-gallery/his-highness-aga-khan-delivers-address-parliament.

Please see the copyright statement at http://pm.gc.ca/eng/important-notices#Copyright and specifically to the following clause: "Non-commercial Reproduction: Information on this site has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from the Office of the Prime Minister (of Canada)." Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Salim e-a ebrahim. Sadly I cannot find the image you mean. Please provide a link. Thank you. --Krd 07:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi krd: Here is the link to the specific photo concerned: http://pm.gc.ca/sites/pm/files/styles/photogallery_item/public/media/photos/20140227_pg_11.jpg?itok=ps4QEkGY

I think that is what you are asking for. If not then let me know. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So we are discussing File:Aga khan - photo - 'In Divine Company', The Ottawa Citizen, 28 February 2014.jpg which has been deleted today at Wikimedia Commons. As you said, he image is free for noncommercial use, but we need also commercial use at Wikimedia Commons. Please see Commons:Commons:Licensing. --Krd 08:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to ask the PM's office to provide a permission letter for commercial use for Wikipedia and I'll forward it when I have it. Best regards. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Krd&oldid=621596121"