User talk:Fæ

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Revision as of 16:04, 30 July 2021 by Faebot (talk | contribs) (Trim templates | Trim DR notice for file)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I may be slow to respond to questions. Despite automatic trimming, my watchlist hovers above 900,000 items, so it really helps if you remember to {{ping}} me on discussions that are not kept on this page. Feel free to email or for LGBT+ user group discussion become a contact on Telegram or Twitter where messages are persistent, for a more reliable off-wiki discussion. Keep in mind I lose track of emails too, especially complex ones I think I'll get back to but may lose track of.

Faebot is alive in different places, not tied to any specific kit, so some tasks running on Labs have proven stability and carry on regardless of whether human me is still around. However tasks running from my local desktop may pause when my home machine is off for safety reasons. A few tasks run on a headless Raspberry Pi, which should be more resilient it can continue unattended. --Fæ (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spring migration. Due to deciding to finally abandon Python2 based Pywikibot scripts, it may be that old housekeeping might just stop. With a focus on new projects, moving some of the older tasks to Python3 may either stay on the uncertain volunteer backlog for a very long time or will remain permanently under the watermargin. --Fæ (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice If you want to see Python source code that supports some of my projects, go to Github and help yourself. The code is not written with reuse in mind... --Fæ (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notice

If you are concerned that a category gets flooded with automated uploads, check that a template like {{Disambig}}, {{Photographs}}, {{Categorise}}, {{CatDiffuse}} or {{CatCat}} has been applied before complaining. In the case of my batch upload projects, any category marked this way will not be added to new photographs. --Fæ (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


2017
2018
2019
2020
2021

Silverton

Recatagorized all images in the Category:Silverton to Category:Silverton, New South Wales.

Thanks~Cessna_208_Caravan#/media/File:Cessna_208_Caravan_I,_Seawings_(Jet-Ops)_AN1347237.jpg

It is helping young students learn that the cockpit is not really that complicated ~ and all those fancy buttons and such do have a purpose and are very easy to learn ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchellhobbs (talk • contribs) 21:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prośba

Bardzo proszę o napisanie do mnie po polsku, bo niestety, ale nie znam angielskiego i nie wiem w czym jest problem. Pozdrawiam:) Keres 40 (dyskusja) 16:01, 12 gru 2019 (CEST)

speedy....

File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1989) (20515720878).jpg

Suspected copyright violation notice removed. File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1989) (20515720878).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : ShakespeareFan00.

And also:

File:This terrified baby was almost the only human being left alive in Shanghai's South Station after brutal Japanese bombing HD-SN-99-02790.jpg

File:This terrified baby was almost the only human being left alive in Shanghai's South Station after brutal Japanese bombing HD-SN-99-02790.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your fight for equal rights for everyone, I would like to give you this humble recognition. We need more people like you in commons Wilfredor (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RM photographs

Your recent additions of FPG Royal Marines photographs have been impressive and useful. Would you add any of RM snipers on ships? I ask because there are so few images of any such snipers on commons, the only examples that I found are here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_Marine_Corps_snipers and here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_021209-O-0000X-002_Spanish_Sailors_aboard_the_Santa_Maria-class_Frigate_Navarra_(F-85)_man_provide_cover_for_boarding_teams,_during_a_hostile_boarding_of_the_North_Korean_vessel,_So_San.jpg Any others from the RM or any other forces would be welcome and could be useful additions to the Sniper and the Marines articles.

What do you think? --Dreddmoto (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any examples that have not been uploaded yet? --Fæ (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any but, I wonder if you could find any. They could be of any forces around the world, not just the RM. Thanks for the reply. --Dreddmoto (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mural- "Past, Present, and Future" by Nancy Grieves in Gilroy, California, the "Garlic Capital of the World" LCCN2013634726.tif

Suspected copyright violation notice removed. File:Mural- "Past, Present, and Future" by Nancy Grieves in Gilroy, California, the "Garlic Capital of the World" LCCN2013634726.tif (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Missvain.

And also:

File:Mural "Liquor St" on Melrose Avenue, an internationally renowned shopping, dining and entertainment destination in Los Angeles, California LCCN2013632496.tif

Suspected copyright violation notice removed. File:Mural "Liquor St" on Melrose Avenue, an internationally renowned shopping, dining and entertainment destination in Los Angeles, California LCCN2013632496.tif (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Missvain.

And also:

File:Mural in Los Angeles, California LCCN2013631599.tif

Suspected copyright violation notice removed. File:Mural in Los Angeles, California LCCN2013631599.tif (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Missvain.

And also:

File:Art murals on the exterior of the Fox Warfield Theatre, a 2,300 seat music venue located at 982 Market Street in San Francisco, California LCCN2013631836.tif

Suspected copyright violation notice removed. File:Art murals on the exterior of the Fox Warfield Theatre, a 2,300 seat music venue located at 982 Market Street in San Francisco, California LCCN2013631836.tif (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Missvain.

And also:

Bot for statistics of scanned archival records

Hello Fae, a few days ago, the state archive of Saarland, a federal state in Germany, uploaded around 900 historical maps (16th to 19th centuries) to Commons (see here). We would like to continue uploading scans of archival records to Commons. To be able to better check what kind of recordings are best used in wikipedia, I want to ask you, I you could write for us a bot for statistics. I saw that you wrote such bots für the German Federal Archives a few years ago (see here, especially the overwies too Wikimedia Usage, Volunteers, Most edited and Popular categories. This is exactly what we are looking for! Would it be very time-consuming for you to adapt theses bot for our archive? It would be great if you could help us! Thank you so much and with best regards from our Saarland, --LandesarchivSaarbrücken (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @LandesarchivSaarbrücken: Hi, the GLAM dashboard reports have been broken for a few years I believe but were available for free for anyone that wanted to have their 'bucket category' reported on. I did repair them, then repaired them again, but unfortunately, the only thing that's guaranteed is that WMF development changes to the wiki database structure, or the denial to volunteers of the ability for long running reports to finish queries over 30 minutes, will continue breaking unpaid volunteer reports like this every year. It's discouraging, so sorry, I'm not inclined to solve this for you. I suggest you consider funding the report and paying someone with SQL & wiki experience to produce an upgraded tool that could do something similar, the original source code is available on labs, as it is for any bot task. --Fæ (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Fae, thank you very much for your answer! We will see how we proceed. It's a shame that all of your work on this hasn't resulted in a permanent structural bot ... Best regards from Saarland --LandesarchivSaarbrücken (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UK Legislation Project

Hi @Fæ: ,

I've noticed you've uploaded several hundred thousand files relating to UK legislation. Thanks!

I'm a practising solicitor in the UK with some reasonably good knowledge of how UK legislation works, and I'm a little concerned that the scope of the project is a bit off-base and could be much more useful if these were addressed:

  1. By uploading the PDFs of the legislation as amended, what you've actually done is uploaded a snapshot of that legislation as amended (a) up to the point in time you scraped the PDF, but (b) only so far as legislation.gov.uk had been upaded at that point. i.e. if there were pending changes at the point you scraped the PDF they wouldn't be picked up. I'm not sure that an archive of such PDFs is likely to be of much use, as in many cases it will already be considerably out of date, and in some cases they simply contain no content (e.g. where they've been repealed). Any practising lawyer or member of the public would be far better served by simply visiting legislation.gov.uk to get an up to date version, and there is little to no worth in having a snapshot. However, the Queen's/King's Printer versions (also known as the "as enacted" versions, as these are the same thing) are of value, as they are mandated legal citations (see section 19(1)(c)). Section 19(1)(b) does not apply to Acts post-1707, and section 19(1)(a) refers to legislation.gov.uk itself. They are, in essence, the version from which legislation.gov.uk is built, and are unchanging documents that should be archived. I would strongly suggest that the main file for each piece of legislation be the QP/KP version where this is available, with any files with the "qp" or "en" suffixes being removed as duplicates. I will be filling in the gaps on these over time.
  2. Secondly, the system of citations used is somewhat inaccurate when it comes to pre-1963 Acts that use the old system of citation involving the regnal year. These will need to be moved to their new locations and should not simply refer to the year and chapter. Very frustratingly, legislation.gov.uk is inaccurate in this sense.
  3. I am able to access large numbers of local Acts, the vast majority of which are not available on legislation.gov.uk. I will be periodically uploading these after running them through a trained version of Abbyy OCR reader. I've put the first batch up for the year 1990 using your system of naming, and have categorised them in UK Local Acts.

Looking foward to hearing back from you.

Theknightwho (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fæ/Project list/UK legislation identifies some of the issues. This was a compromise project, with the limited aim of getting the content easy to use across the Wikimedia projects. Certainly, categorization, titles, identification are "weak", because the source archive is by its nature inconsistent and weak. I'm open to rethinking the workflow, but as this is already a large body of files, it would be worth carefully documenting and designing before making mass changes (which I'm unlikely to get to right now), but naturally feel free to try out obvious options.
I'm aware of the issue of versioning and even having 'blanks'. Covid19 legislation being an obvious but probably exceptional case of breathtakingly rapid amendments and potentially several versions of the same document being important as references during the pandemic timeline. Giving the reader a better navigation experience on Commons is a puzzle. I would not be in a rush to delete files, a first step might be working out a better hierarchy that would be possible to automate by bot task. There are also issues with even uploading the QP versions, which I probably need to revisit, they are definitely incomplete and tricky to do without the automation breaking (I can't remember why at this moment).
If there's a starting point, it would make sense to consider this list of recently 'slurped' documents. The task is running weekly from my old laptop and if the way that legislation.gov handles the most recent files has better options, this would be practical to improve if there are concrete suggestions as at some point I need to rewrite the slurper task to run under a more recent version of Python. --Fæ (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. I would suggest at this point that it will require manual tweaking, with the focus on primary legislation (i.e. Acts) rather than secondary. The main focus for this would be to ensure that the original version of the Act as enacted is the primary file, with any amendments being separate versions. This does not lend itself to mass changes.
QP/KP versions must be the primary version, because they are the basis on which everything else is built. I am able to fill these out for a large part, and will do so over time (this requires a lot of manual work), but could you please confirm that you won't object to these being uploaded as the primary file (i.e. without the qp suffix)?
In terms of having several versions, you won't get any better result than is available at legislation.gov.uk, which already allows viewing past versions. As it is, it is likely to be highly confusing to any user because a version from a particular date is unlikely to be up to date to that date because of the delay in amendments being incorporated. There's also nothing to indicate that this is the approach taken on each file, and so I'd argue from a practising legal perspective that it's simply misleading. I have no objection to including versions amended over time in principle, but this would require a far more systematised approach that would, in essence, be a mirror of the legislation.gov.uk site without much of the functiionality.
As things stand, I don't think this is a task that particularly lends itself to automation past this point except when it comes to new legislation, so I don't think that any adaption to a scraping bot is necessary unless changes are made to how new legislation is uploaded.
(Edit) One more thing before I forget: it doesn't make much sense for me to work with newly scraped files for reorganisation, because my primary concern is with legislation uploaded from pre-1963 where the form of citation was different and they're categorised badly on legislation.gov.uk, or casess where the QP/KP version should be the primary file and not the automatically generated PDF from an arbitrary point in time. Theknightwho (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, then it's easier. From the perspective of the upload project, those should be complete, so any categorization or even renaming would not cause any conflicts with the collection being refreshed or later uploads.
I encourage you to be bold and make some decisions, and it would be helpful if you could add some notes to the project page so that others can more easily track what's going on in the future. --Fæ (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Are you able to amend the bot to pull down the QP versions of new legislation? I appreciate these are (almost) identical to the auto-generated PDF, but it'd be good for the sake of having an accurate record. Thanks again for this, by the way - 200k+ uploads is immense. Theknightwho (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, but QP uploads is a task that currently always breaks before finishing a run. I hesitate to suggest how long it might take for me to look at it because there's a lot on my backlog. --Fæ (talk) 09:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:891-900 (IA 89190000nati).pdf

File:891-900 (IA 89190000nati).pdf (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Contributers2020 (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Great Mosque (Rome)

Affected:


Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Royal Navy Reservist Diver MOD 45156537.jpg

File:Royal Navy Reservist Diver MOD 45156537.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal Navy Reservist Diver MOD 45156537.jpg Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 16:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ggbain.30035

Are some point are you going to go back to the LOC/Flickr project to upload images that were missed in previous rounds? I find one or two a month that were missed from previous uploads. --RAN (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to, but my 'water margin' keeps getting deeper. It doesn't help being kicked so hard on another project, which anyone would find depressing. Anyway, for the moment the answer is in practice no, if anyone else would be interested in picking up the code and having a go, that would be super. --Fæ (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:A Young RAF Recruit Smiles on Parade at RAF Halton MOD 45153232.jpg

File:A Young RAF Recruit Smiles on Parade at RAF Halton MOD 45153232.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:A Young RAF Recruit Smiles on Parade at RAF Halton MOD 45153232.jpg Dreamy Jazz talk to me | enwiki 21:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files incorrectly marked as licensed under the Open Goverment License (OGL)

Dreamy Jazz talk to me | enwiki 22:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer of 1,689 images Welsh 19c ballads from Internet Archive to Commons request

Hi Fæ - shw mae?

Inductiveload mentioned you on their talk page regarding transferring 1,689 images from IA to Commons. I wonder if another collaboration with you is possible? It's a request from a cy-wikisource editor, who would like to add the images and text to WS. I hope you're Covid-free and in good spirit! Best regards diolch...

Robin aka Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywelyn2000: If you can specify an IA query, ref User_talk:Fæ/IA_books#Queries, then it's fairly easy for me to run a upload against that query with a home category for them all to start in.
Covid precautions have been very disruptive, but being on the excessively cautious side seems to has been the best way to avoid getting infected ourselves. --Fæ (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bendigedig! Wonderful, and glad you're as cautious (and sensible) as we are here!
If I understand correctly, Category:Scans from the Internet Archive marked public domain fits nicely; as would: Category:Welsh language ballads from the Internet Archive. Also: PD-old-100-expired template is good. All images - no date parameter. So if I understand, then: mediatype:(texts) date:default/none rights:((PD-old-100-expired))? Can't see anything about OCR, Fæ, but would be good if the existing IA OCR in it can also be imported. Let me know if I have the wrong end to the stick! Many, many thanks! Robin Llywelyn2000 (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You need to tell me the query to use on Internet Archive, see https://archive.org/advancedsearch.php. Often this is as simple as the creator or publisher name and date range. It's fine if this is a list of collections.
Boldly starting with "(language:wel OR language:"Welsh") date:[1000 TO 1899]" "Scans in Welsh from the Internet Archive" "PD-old-70". However, there are only 1147 matches on IA for this. It may be that many Welsh texts on IA are not marked as being in Welsh.
Creating Category:Scans in Welsh from the Internet Archive, of course these will mostly not be the books you are looking for. --Fæ (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so some ballads are in English and made in Wales; that's no problem, in fact that's good. [The problem is that 'Welsh' refers to nationality, country and language of Wales! So (subject:"Welsh ballads") gives me 1,689 images. Yes, it's a list of individual ballads by diff printers and publishers. So may be the following would suffice?
"date:[1000 TO 1899]" "subject:"Welsh ballads"" "Ballads printed in Wales or in Welsh from the Internet Archive" "PD-old-70" ?
Thanks again for your time on this, Fæ! R - Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realised that the collection comes from Cardiff University, here, where there's a few more! But let's go for the ballads first? Maybe that we need to add collection:Cardiff University Special Collections and Archives? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

subject:(Welsh ballads) date:[1000 TO 1899]
Returns 512 items, the majority of these are going to already be on commons; ah it just finished and only found 11 documents not already uploaded. The difference in numbers might be due to the fact that only texts are being uploaded. Category:Ballards published in Wales or in Welsh from the Internet Archive. Someone may need to think through copyright rationales. Some works dated 1870 to 1899 might have some copyright claim, and works after 1899 may be public domain, they just might be harder to specify as a group.
If you have some time, play around with the query at Internet Archive and see if there are better ways of matching reasonable collections.
...
As the first run was so short, I'm running
"collection:cardiffuniversitycollection date:[1000 TO 1899]" "Cardiff University Special Collections and Archives"
This returns 565 texts, though some of those might not be a scanned documents and will be skipped and keep in mind that due to the 'big PDF bug' on Commons, documents over 200MB long or in an indigestible format for the WMF server will never upload; details on the project page COM:IA books.
Note this bug, for some unexpected reason the automated attempt to cut off the Google flyer page from some texts in Category:Scans in Welsh from the Internet Archive results in bad rendering of the PDF on Commons. The file is actually there, correctly with the Google page removed, but it's not being parsed. These might self-correct, but otherwise, they need to be reverted to the original file and probably just live with the annoying cover page.
...
Bigger collection now done, there were a lot of already uploaded files, so just 48 new documents. --Fæ (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fæ and many thanks for your time on this project! I understand that there a re over 4,000 images, so I'll contact the uni directly, rather than do it through IA. I'll come back to you shortly. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you've uploaded so far is really interesting stuff! I've had a look at the stats for the ballads. A simple search shows 1,708 Welsh language ballads. Most have 2-4 pages. All of these will be out of copyright, and have OCRed text. Can we use this simple search (or am I missing something obvious)? Thanks Fæ. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the difference is not restricting to texts, like audio recordings. These can be uploaded, but as it's a small number they can be done manually. There's also the fact that the vast majority (80%?) were already on Commons, so local Commons searches can find them using the keywords that have been copied over from the IA metadata and are in the information box, if you want to add better categories now.
I have re-run using a blank date range, this can include documents where the date is not in a standard format at IA, in this case over 100 matches. Ref Category:Welsh ballads.
If there are specific PDFs that are still not uploaded, provide a link here so I can think about what else might be refined in the IA query.
Keep in mind there are around 10 or so files that were 'unuploadable', like https://archive.org/details/gweddigyffr00chur. This is not just because of size, but something to do with the PDF not passing the WMF server's mime type test, even if it is a valid PDF.
P.S. I'm not defending the copyright status of these latest uploads, they go up to 1913. The likelihood is they are out of copyright, but someone ought to review the post-1900 dated texts as a precaution.
Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the VP?

Re: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Tm. You mentioned to bring up the issue on the VP. What /where is that?

Aavindraa (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not being clear, it's the COM:VP. --Fæ (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Terns Defending Their Nests (3593273131).jpg

File:Terns Defending Their Nests (3593273131).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Terns Defending Their Nests (3593273131).jpg MPF (talk) 10:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fæ&oldid=577611588"