User talk:Revent/Archive 13

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hmm...

Perhaps you didn't see 'Bollywood Hungama' template which exists on thousands of images uploaded from Bollywood Hungama site. Anyway, currently I am living in different world and not interested in these images. AbhiRiksh (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@AbhiRiksh: The 'Bollywood Hungama' license template requires license review, which is exactly what I was doing. There was a backlog of well over 400 images in that review category, which was ridiculous... most 'passed', the one that I marked as {{Npd}} are ones where the image was not at the stated source, and where I was unable to locate it after a few minutes of searching (there were many that I 'did' find at a new location, fixed the source, and passed). The reason they are npd, instead of simply speedy, is to give the uploader themselves a chance to attempt to locate where the file is now, since BH is 'known' to move them around sometimes. Reventtalk 14:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. Those source links are indeed not working. BH has redeveloped their site and it is not working on my mobile anymore, so I can't search new location of those images. I have no objection if those images are deleted. Thanks. AbhiRiksh (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Tagging of Bollywood Hungama images

The images were available on the site when I uploaded them. It's not my fault that admins took an age to review them.- Managerarc talk 13:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Managerarc: I don't think it's 'your fault', and I don't think anyone else that knew about the situation with BH would either (I would argue against anyone trying to 'use' BH-related notices against evidence against someone). The 'took an age to review' is exactly what I was trying to deal with.... I actually spent a couple of days going through well over 400 images that were pending review from that source, and fixed as many as I could. BH is 'well-known' to sometimes move images around, but they are also 'well-known' to take down images because they themselves find copyright problems after publication. I'm sorry they were not reviewed sooned, but I can't pass them without actually seeing the evidence myself. Reventtalk 14:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Institutions

Hello! Why do you format like this the institution names within the Artwork templates? {{Artwork}} transcludes the institution template automatically, just by its name, so such an explicit syntax (brackets and "institution" prefix) is redundant. --INS Pirat (talk) 03:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@INS Pirat: I'm aware that Artwork does it 'automatically'... it also adds the files to Category:Artwork template with implicit institution, whihc is a maintenance category, so they can be cleaned up.
There are a couple of reasons 'why'... one is that the code in 'Artwork' that does it automatically is expensive, and the server does not do well at updating pages that transclude other pages in that way... the server will take far longer to decide to re-render a page that uses an 'institution' template that way than one that transcludes it directly (if the institution template is edited), and because of the expensive code the 'cost' of doing so is a lot higher, especially when it's widely used. Also, using the template directly makes it far easier for programs that are looking at the unrendered code (such as bots) to know that the template is used.
Detecting the institution (or the creator) 'automatically' is just supposed to be a workaround, and fixing them is just (very) backlogged maintenance. Reventtalk 03:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #230

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • The property talk namespace now has subpages enabled (phabricator:T146271)
    • More work on automated sitelinks for Wiktionary (phabricator:T987)
    • More work on federation for Commons in order to be able to use Wikidata's items and properties there (phabricator:T76007)
    • Adding entity usage information in action=edit on Wikipedia and co (phabricator:T144921)
    • Working on making it possible to get formatted values back on the client. With this we will for example link the value to a Wikipedia article where possible. (phabricator:T142940)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.

Bollywood Hungama

Hello, can you merge the history of these files File:Bipasha Basu and Karan Singh Grover grace IIFA 2016 at Madrid.jpg, File:Nora Fatehi at the red carpet of TOIFA 2016.jpg and File:Shweta Tripathi at the red carpet of TOIFA 2016.jpg to File:Karan Singh Grover & Bipasha Basu pose post their wedding in Mumbai.jpg, File:Nora Fatehi and Himarsha Venkatsamy at the media meet of ‘Roar – Tigers of Sunderbans’.jpg and File:Shweta Tripathi at the special screening of ‘Masaan’.jpg respectively? Because I now don't want any of my files to be deleted because already many files have been deleted. You can now close the nomination discussion as it has been more than five days and nobody has voted yet. I'm just asking you to merge the history of the nominated files to newly uploaded files and delete the previous thumbnails. It's a kind request. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️I👨‍👩‍⋡ 06:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mr. Smart LION: I don't think policy supports it, tbh, but I would (strongly) argue against anyone that attempted to sanction you because of the deleted files... they are rather clearly not 'your fault'. For what it's worth, any 'prolific' uploader of works from 3rd party sources accumulates a collection of deleted files over time... it's normal, as you cannot control those 3rd parties, and expected. BH is simply an especially problematic source, but there are others, such as mynewsdesk.
I should not close those DRs, as I opened them (I'm involved), but how they will be closed is obvious. Nobody reading them will think you are a problem editor... your response was clearly reasonable, even if you missed a point of the rules about overwriting. Reventtalk 06:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Trial unblock request

Any chance of being allowed to upload without pre-approval for a trial period? I've been extra diligent to find and clear photos for quiet a while now and would include all supporting licensing details with uploads, including search info. Of course, if a photo is uploaded and someone later questions it on its talk page, I'd be happy to either provide whatever other support is asked for or else let it be speedied without the need for a DR. I'm trying to find and add supporting photos for a number of biographies. Any consideration would be appreciated. --Light show (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Light show: This was actually discussed some a short while back, after the subject of your condition came up on VPC... to be honest, I would not feel okay with doing so without some community discussion and a consensus, since as you might recall even my unblocking you 'with restrictions' was the source of a bit of drama. Reventtalk 20:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Review

Hallo, please see this photo and this photo and this,, thank u.KumudJi (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@KumudJi: ✓ Done Reventtalk 22:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #231

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Review

Dear Revent, I wanted to check with you if I could upload this pic from Bonnie and Clyde? CBS broadcast the movie on 20 September 1973, issuing this photo to publicize the broadcast, without copyright markings. front back Thank you very much for your help WB 4829 (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@WB 4829: Well, the copy you link isn't 'original'... it's from 1973, and the movie is quite a bit older. I thought the photo looked very familiar, however, so I hunted around. http://theredlist.com/media/database/muses/couples/historic/bonnie-and-clyde/019-bonnie-and-clyde-theredlist.jpeg is a high resolution image of it being used, in 1967, with a clear copyright notice, as advertising material for the original movie. It's, unfortunately, not okay (and good evidence of why the 'such things were never copyrighted' argument is bad. Sorry. Reventtalk 01:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: Thank you. One last question if you are okay.... Is it the same for this one ? It's from a TV movie called The Woman I Love.... Thank you! WB 4829 (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
@WB 4829: That appears (to me, and from the description) to be the form in which the image was distributed privately to network stations, for them to actually 'publish' to promote the film... it doesn't look like a form in which the image was actually distributed 'to the public', so I don't think the lack of copyright marks is particularly indicative. Any real publication would probably have been copies of this image, in newspapers or other media. Reventtalk 20:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #232

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.


Wikidata celebrates its 4th anniversary on October 29th. Around this date, a lot of events will happen online and offline.

Birthday events

Editors all around the world organize meetups to celebrate the birthday. You can join one of them or create an event in your own town!

Online

A lot of surprises, stories and presents will be shared between October 29th and November 4th. Check the project chat or the mailing-list every day to see what happens!

You can also participate by posting a story (more info here), a tweet with #WikidataBirthday, let a message or a present on the birthday page.

If you're participating to Wikidata's birthday, you can add this template to your user page.



  • Development
    • Fixed a rounding error in the geo coordinate formatter (see GitHub). Thanks, 0x686578!
    • Improvements to technical error messages, e.g. "illegal value" when editing a Commons media statement (phabricator:T141880).
    • Continued working on a new parser function to get rich, formatted statements.
    • Continued working on making entity usage information visible to users.

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.


Security Council Resolutions

Kudos for your hard work https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-10#U.N._Security_Council_ResolutionsElvey (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey: Thanks... that was incredibly tedious, but I think it's valuable material. Reventtalk 23:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

barnstar

No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man

English: Happy Scaling the Reichstag day.
We are so glad to have met you, and look forward to more mass deletion events ! Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 20:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Wikidata weekly summary #234

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Map of the birthday parties

Thanks to everyone who celebrated the birthday by organizing or attending to an event, letting a message on Wikidata or on the social networks, writing a story or creating a present!

Here's the list of the birthday presents from the community and development team:

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.

File:Klein four-group as subgroup of Oh; elements 0, 7, 1', 6'; cycle graph.svg etc.

Hi Revent, please don't mark images actually in use as duplicates of unused files in Category:Full octahedral group; subgroups; delete. I will make a deletion request for all these images. Watchduck (quack) 07:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Watchduck: I was actually working down the list at Special:ListDuplicatedFiles, and marked the 'newer' file (the one that was actually uploaded 'as' a duplicate) as the duplicate, without noticing your category. Sorry if I that would interfere with some naming scheme, but files can always be moved.
FWIW, usually I tag duplicates (to notify the uploader) and then immediately make them go away... I 'left' that one, after tagging it, specifically to give you time to respond because it looked like there was some intended naming scheme. Reventtalk 08:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete duplicate

Please delete this duplicates:

File:RR5220-0019 2.jpg (duplicate of File:RR5220-0019.jpg);

File:RR5111-0292R 2.jpg (duplicate of File:RR5111-0292R.jpg). --Mauser98k (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mauser98k: ✓ Done Reventtalk 20:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!--Mauser98k (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Tools

Hi Revent,

Please have a look at phab:T148450 and make sure that I got the details right.  :-) Thanks! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF): Awesomesauce. :) Reventtalk 17:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

BTW, if this gets done, I'll close down my plans to restart COM:FUUB. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't promise anything, but the best-case scenario is that this would take a few months (once they started), so re-starting FUUB in the interim might still be a good idea.
Also, what do you think about proposing this for the m:2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Categories/Commons? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I like the idea, and it would be of clear cross-wiki benefit (since 'losing' transferred fair-use-eligible files to deletion of Commons is a recurrent complaint, and an understandable one) but I'm terrible at writing such things. Reventtalk 21:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I think it looks like a good idea you submitted. I just posted a suggestion there. Basically, it might be a good idea to start with a couple of the big wiki's like ENWP and German and provide some of the requirements. Otherwise the task of creating functionality for every wiki might be too much. Reguyla (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@Reguyla: meta:Non-free_content should be a fairly decent list, since all projects are require to have an "Exemption Doctrine Policy" in order to accept fair use content. Reventtalk 22:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Roman Laurel

What have I missed? Other than the picture requiring a Flickr account to view it on Flickr, I believe everything is in order, would you like me to screenshot the Flickr page, upload it to imgur and link it? Iazyges (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Iazyges: It's not the same image. It's similar (a laurel) but not the same. Reventtalk 17:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
must have linked the wrong one, I'll find the other one ASAP. Iazyges (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I have found the correct one and linked it. Iazyges (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hello Revent why you are continuously editing my image? If you have any problem you can review the image.IronScientist (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@IronScientist: That 'was' a license review... it was a failed one, because the linked source (Picasa) does not show the indicated license. Reventtalk 18:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Teddy Hart

Hi, it seems like some of the files of this person that I uploaded has duplicates. I have no idea where they came from. I looked for images for him before I uploaded them here. Since they were so many what will happen to me now?*Treker (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@*Treker: It's not you, and that's not 'what happened'. You had uploaded png 'thumbnails' of the images, at a lower resolution than was available on Flickr. There's no point in uploading such smaller images (since Mediawiki can automatically create thumbnails) so I uploaded copies of the 'full size' original images, and marked your smaller versions as duplicates of them. You're not in trouble, it's just that the fullsize images are on Commons now... I uploaded the fullsize ones specifically 'because' you had uploaded the smaller ones. Reventtalk 00:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I would have just put the larger ones 'on top' of yours, except you had uploaded them as pngs, and what was on Flickr was jpegs. Reventtalk 00:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
You can use Commons:Flickr2Commons (which is what I did) to get the full-resolution versions of images from Flickr directly to Commons, btw. Having the larger ones makes our collection more generally useful (think print) so it's preferred. Reventtalk 00:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Revent/Archive_13&oldid=216120701"