User talk:Kotepho/Archive 04: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:52, 19 July 2007

Zzz

Deleted pages reports

How did you create these reports (Template talk:Deletedpage#How temporary is this?) ? Could you tell me how to create them and/or create them again? —Centrx→talk • 21:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From database dumps (the 7-02-06 set, see also m:Database dumps), various queries, some awk/perl/sed, etc. I'll grab the 7-17 dumps and rerun it if you want, but it will take several hours to download everything, source it, etc though; or I'll make a page with all of the queries and scripts if you want. Kotepho 21:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making a page with the queries would be good so anyone can do it without starting from scratch. —Centrx→talk • 23:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rough draft at User:Kotepho/reports/queries,_scripts,_and_scratch, most of them are pretty straight forward. Kotepho 00:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updated from the 8-10-2006 dumps. Kotepho 02:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin reports

I like your admin actions reports. I have a question that may have an obvious answer... Is there a way to link a user's name to the user numbers listed on your reports? (I know my own because it is shown in my preferences). NoSeptember 21:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I can look up anyone's you want, and interiot[correction: User:TDS, http://tools.wikimedia.de/~tim/mapping/] had a tool (that since 404s, at least last I checked, maybe I'll drop him a message) that could be done to do it. The `user` table is not included in dumps (it has your password and stuff, so thats good), and that is the only table that it is easy to do userid <-> username matching from (bad =(). Currently I grep stub-meta-history (as a tab delimited file generated from the xml dump) for any userid I want, but I haven't bothered to make a script to generate a list or ask someone with toolserver access to dump a list. Kotepho 21:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With only approximately 1000 admins, if there was a way to get a list of admins linked to user ID, I would find that quite useful. If it strikes your fancy to get such a list generated at some point that would be great. (Honestly, I don't understand half of what you wrote above ;). NoSeptember 22:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha, sorry for the jargon. I made a list of all users that had an edit that hasn't been deleted as of 7-02-06, so that should work. It is 4 megs compressed though. Put it in the database and I'm re-running a few of the reports now. Some things may be a little wonky still though... there are 15 user id's that ended up with the user name of 0 though and there are two of The Epopt, TMC, Tarquin, TUF-KAT, Conversion script (blame a vandal for that one!), and Dysprosia. Kotepho 23:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bummer, some of the userids that I ended up with as 0 are admins and/or have multiple usernames listed in edit histories associated with that userid. That is just annoying. Why would I ever assume that a user id or username would be unique, it would only you know.. make sense.. and the schema lists them are primary and unique keys... Other than a few usernames being 0, or duplicated User:Kotepho/reports/admin/month/block is updated with names. Guess I'll trawl through history some more to figure out the rest manually. Kotepho 04:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All should be updated. Still a few issues with names though, 4 people I cannot identify and the duplicates (probably due to renames done by hand, such as TMC.. who used to be named after a large barnyard animal). The total of all time(really, old as the logging table.. I'm not going to bother finding all of the old logs spread around and parsing their disparate formats for what little information is there) is off by 1210, apparently some admin(s) no longer has any edits or something =(

On a semi-related issue, I think I should say that basing any decisions on these numbers (hi WT:RFA!) is intellectually bankrupt in my mind, but you can go with it if you want. Funny curiousity and pretty graphs are cool though. Kotepho 23:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the work. now I will start playing with it :). NoSeptember 20:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for fixing my bad template on The Colbert Report! Servers aren't being very responsive for me right now. –RHolton ≡– 03:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither... I didn't get a new message banner even. I think this means the Colbert Report and Wikipedia tied. No vandalism, but you can't edit at all. Kotepho 03:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Betterfact

Template:Betterfact has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. dryguy 21:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Bot

Sorry that was a glitch it has been fixed thank you for identifing it. if I can co anything for you just drop me a line. Betacommand 03:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a Member of Wikipedia:Bots/Approvals group I am just letting you know that we are awaitng a responce about your trial run. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 06:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

eh? What more do you want? Kotepho 15:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just some diffs and a summery of the trial run. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like this? Do I need to go into more detail, or what? Kotepho 15:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BOTepho's bot flag

Hi. Per Betacommand's final approval [1], I've granted a bot flag to your bot account, BOTepho. Cheers, Redux 20:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted pages

Hi there! We've been working on removing old protected/deleted pages. Your list has been very helpful for that, so thanks. Could you please regenerate it some time in the near future? >Radiant< 13:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Kotepho 20:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TawkerBotTorA

Howdy! In the Tor bot RfA, your oppose seems to suggest that you're under the mistaken impression that the user running the bot is not an admin. You may wish to update your text appropriately and change the oppose reason. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not ignorant of that fact. Kotepho 16:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

until someone with a clue that is also an admin steps up to run and maintain it

.

The above quote indicates that are aware that he's an admin, you are instead calling him clueless. If that is a mistake, you may wish to update your text appropriately, otherwise it becomes a civility issue. There are plenty of good reasons to oppose the RfA, please pick another one instead. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no non-commercial restriction in his license, in fact, he makes it clear that commercial publications can and do use his images. Your tagging is in error. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may post TrainWeb photos to other websites or use them in print media without charge and without any further permission from TrainWeb. However, "www.trainweb.com" must be printed either on or near the photo, or in another area where credit is provided to photos used in your material or on your website. You may use small font sizes as long as the credit is readable. Web Sites must include a link to "www.trainweb.com". Your cooperation is appreciated. If the photos will be used in print and you are providing credits for all photos in that publication in a location that is not directly on or next to each photos, that is acceptable, but less preferred than placing the credit right on or by each photo.

It does not explicitly allow commercial usage or derivative works. Kotepho 23:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"TrainWeb photographs have appeared in official Amtrak publications and have even appeared in independent national publications. " Those sure ain't noncommercial. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that they have been used does not confirm that the license allows commercial use. I can release images under CC-BY-ND-NC and then say that the photos have been used by Foo magazine (but I do not state that I gave them a different license). It appears to me to be a boasting statement, rather than anything that deals with licensing. Furthermore, other websites or use them in print media is also restrictive. Kotepho 23:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pages with lots of fair use

Could you update this page again please, or make available the code that you used to generate it? A lot of things have changed since you last ran it just two days ago. All of the big violators have been knocked down. I'm wondering what the new ones to go after are. Thanks. --Cyde Weys 19:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toolserver is useless and the last dump hasn't even finished yet, so probably two weeks until another one. It is a pretty simple query though, make a table or a list of all fair use cats (well, most.. the category system is fucked up) and then do categorylinks -> page > imagelinks -> page on namespace 0 group by page_id/title (I think it is on the scratch page... somewhere, if it isn't I'll throw something up). I might be able to pull a set of image links from query.php and either compare them versus categories from query.php (but they are also being thrown around so I would have to manually make a new list) or versus a list of fair use images that existed a month ago. Kotepho 19:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm.. well query.php and api.php will not do what I want, yet. Going through the list, downloading the wikitext, and trying to parse the images out of it would be a hassle (with all of the ways people include images with arcane templates). =/ Kotepho 20:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, by far the best way to do it is to scrape the actual rendered HTML. Thus you're using the wiki parser to include all of the images for you. Then just grep the HTML source for all of the image tags and parse out the actual wiki names of the images using the links that they're wrapped in. --Cyde Weys 18:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would work, lemme see if I can hack together something and not totally rape the server to do it. Kotepho 23:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated with a scraped list from today versus my list of fair use images from 4-02 or so. Some images are still miscategorized in this list and any new images and recent changes are not reflected obviously (I'm not looking forward to trying to work things out again with all of these categories flying around in different ways =() and some pages are wrong because of weird things I didn't account for (example: Are_You_Afraid_of_the_Dark?_(TV_series) and Who_Killed_Tom_King?, unescaped ? => page not found but not a really friendly 404... but whatever I'm going to bed). Kotepho 07:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell am I supposed to put the logo of the movement there now?

Explain. Should I remove the logo of the Christian cross from the Template:Christianity on the same grounds? Of course not, so why is this wrong? If you're right, I found another non-free logo for you to remove. It's at Microsoft.Kmarinas86 13:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image in Template:Christianity is free, whereas the image used in Template:Raelism(I believe this is what you are talking about...) is not. The problem is not with using logos in articles, but in templates. It would be fine in Raelism (just like the Microsoft logo is fine in Microsoft, but in the template it serves a decorative purpose. Kotepho 01:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RHCP discography images

why all albums pages (not only rhcp..all artists..)could have the image of the cover of the album and we can't put it on discography page??

Articles about albums are allowed to have the album covers because they are discussing the album and maybe even the cover itself; discographies do not. Kotepho 12:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus on the question whether discographies should have images or not. chsf 01:29, 2 June 2007 (CET)

Removal of Fair-Use images from discographies

Hi. I noticed you removed all images from the Ian Svenonius discography article, and would like to discuss the matter with you. However, I've noticed that you've done this with a number of other Discography articles, so I'll speak in overall terms rather than just the single article I am concerned with. As far as I know, no consensus (community-based, by administrators, or otherwise) has been made concerning the use of fair-use images in such articles. (If I am mistaken please correct me and lead me to where I can find the definitive discussion or decision). Discussions without consensus are not grounds for wide-spread removal of content. Merely citing WP:FUC in edit summaries is entirely insufficient, since the language of the policy is unclear and no consensus has been reached on the discussion page. I'll save my own personal opinions on the topic for a better forum then your User talk page, but suffice to say I disagree with removing such images from discographies, and very much disagree with your removal of content without any consensus to back it up. To avoid being inflammatory, and assuming good faith in your edits, I'll avoid reverting your edits to the Ian Svenonius discography article until further notice. Drewcifer3000 21:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think you totally understand what “fair use” means. If the image is illustrating the discussed item with out violating the rights of owner, than the image is used fairly. Discography pages use images to illustrate the subject in question and are therefore used fairly. – Zntrip 22:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand a great deal about fair use, but the major issue at hand is not fair use. Wikipedia is a project to develop free content and as such only allows fair use content under strict circumstances. If a page depends on fair use images or specifically depends on them the issue of entangling our free content and essentially making it non-free by virtue of including non-free content can be justified. If the use of images do not specifically enrich our content, our content is sullied for no real purpose. This is something that should be avoided. Kotepho 03:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is unclear about "identify the subject of the article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text, and must not serve a purely decorative purpose" (for the earliest revision of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria [2] and the language is still present today, albeit reworded and even explicitly prohibits non-free content in lists and galleries. There is also the issue that including 50+ images is not minimal and that album covers are explicitly only allowed for "for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)" (this is also long standing wording).

If you can explain how any of the articles I have removed images do actually meet our usage policies I will revert myself, but I find your idea that I need to seek consensus (or that there is not consensus behind the parts of our non-free content policies that I am interperting) to be unfounded. I am not even aware of any discussions at all about the use of non-free images in discographies (if you do know of some, I would gladly read them) nor am I targeting discographies so I do not believe a discussion based in the context of discographies is particularly of interest. Kotepho 03:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see how any of the discography pages in question violate the ten criteria outlined in on Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Everything you are citing isn’t on that page. – Zntrip 03:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3(a) Minimal use. As little non-free content as possible is used in an article. Short rather than long video and audio excerpts are used. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.
(b)
8 Significance. Non-free content contributes significantly to an article. It increases the reader's understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot; without it, the reader's ability to understand the topic is significantly impaired. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries and navigational and user-interface elements is usually not significant in these terms.

This one used to say "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose."[3] until recently, but it is the same.

The part about album covers is on Wikipedia:Non-free content itself.

Which part is not where I say it is? Kotepho 03:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see it now. I was looking at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, not Wikipedia:Non-free content. But I still have a question, what does "critical commentary" mean and how do album pages meet this guidline and how do discography pages don't meet it? – Zntrip 15:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best example I can come up with off of the top of my head would be Dark Side of the Moon. It mentions the cover in the text. The vast majority of album pages do not, but they could. In a discography you are not going to meet that requirement. Kotepho 22:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So a cover image has to be described in the article for it to be used fairly? – Zntrip 00:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, yes. Kotepho 00:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not outlined in Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria... – Zntrip 02:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explicitly? No. However, any use wherein an image is not discussed is likely to be decorative. Kotepho 02:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the definition of "decorative"? – Zntrip 03:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:decorative? I would define it in this context as the use serves an aesthetic purpose rather than informational. Kotepho 03:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But "critical commentary" is never used. Take "Smells Like Teen Spirit" for example. It is a fetured article but doesn't describe the cover image... the cover image is actually rarly described in song, album, etc. articles. So why should discography articles be any different? – Zntrip 16:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other people are doing things wrong doesn't mean you get to do things wrong. Kotepho 03:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kotepho. You requested to see some discussions about the use of album cover images in discography articles. Here are a few:

— Mudwater 11:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. However, none of them seem to offer much in the support of the argument to include them. Kotepho 12:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a further discussion of album cover images in discography articles, at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Why remove images from discographies? — Mudwater 19:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redlink

Hi Kotepho. I have a comment. Could you make your user page, um, blue? For example, a redirect to your talk page would work. I know it is a knee-jerk reaction, but seeing a red-linked sig commenting on a serious topic makes one focus on the sig rather than on the topic. Anyway, you can reply here if you have comments. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My userpage is partially a red link exactly for that reason. People should not disregard someone's comments just because they do not recognize the name or their sig happens to be a plain, red linked signature. Redirecting my userpage to my talk page or using my talk page directly in my sig would not have the same effect. I had never throught it would be actively distracting though, as most people that notice seem to just ignore the entire comment. Yes, it is a tinge arrogant and unreasonable to think that my comments are of high enough quality that someone would be convinced that not all redlinked comments are worthless and that they would not just remember my handle and not transitively apply it to possibly all such redlinked comments--but it doesn't hurt to try? (or maybe it does if some of my comments that might be poignant are ignored) Kotepho 05:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice explanation, but at the end of the day, you'd still be better off with a bluelinked page. Communicating in plain text is a challenge already, throwing in a redlinked distraction just doesn't help. But anyway, that's up to you. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image DRV Question

Hi,

I think howcheng was probably right when he made his decision, but there are two good reasons to support an overturn: 1) Lots of very experienced editors disagreed; discussion of this case is not at all perfunctory, as very serious issues need resolving, and this makes as good a "test case" as any; 2) While I think howcheng was right, I also think his concerns might be easy to remedy -- if the photo is significant historically (like the famous portrait of the Yalta Conference, for example), folks can add a paragraph discussing it, thereby satisfying fair use. It is also relevant to note that many deletion supporters at DRV where mistaken in their rationales, legally speaking, attacking the concept of "fair use" in general, rather than this case in particular. For all these reasons, clarification through relisting is the right thing to do. There is a point at which one side can be told "the matter is over," but that point is not yet: arguments and alternatives need further exploration first. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg

As so ordered by DRV, Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg is again nominated for deletion. Please see the debate at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 4#Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg. Regards, howcheng {chat} 21:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll swing by when I have some time to get into it, but I have my fingers in too many pies at the moment. Kotepho 05:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Games Association logos

Can I ask why you keep deleting the logos? Surely they serve a valid purpose - simply having a link to the name of the country rather than a Commonwealth Games link makes this page meaningless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhyddfrydol (talk • contribs) 16:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They serve only a decorative purpose. The page makes just as much sense without them and using the images like that violates Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria 3.a as their use is not minimal and 8. as it is a list or gallery and the logos do not contribute significantly to the understanding of the article. Kotepho 16:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR comment

Would you happen to have a pointer to the RFAr that you mentioned where the WP:BLP policy was interpreted to not allow these deletions? It would be much appreciated. Silas Snider (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war. Kotepho 01:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer! Silas Snider (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:PD-Old regime Iraq

Template:PD-Old regime Iraq has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Keating picture

What are you talking about no source - the source is there - it is from a Flickr picture. The crop is from an earlier deleted image that was wrongly tagged; it has nothing to do with this image. JRG 02:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information on the authorship and copyright of the painting. Kotepho 02:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work on fair use

Kotepho, thank you IMMENSELY for all your hard work on fair use gallery/list removals. I thoroughly appreciate what you are doing. I understand how much flak one comes under because of this work, and know that it is a largely thankless task. I hope this pushes that back a little; THANK YOU! --Durin 15:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but removing images is the easy part. The hard part is convincing people to use fair use material with care and making sure unfree things are not masquerading as free. Kotepho 16:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and that's the part that we suffer a lot of criticism over. :/ --Durin 17:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abu badali arbitration case

Thank you for your comments on my proposed principles at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Workshop. I agree with most of your edits and you will also see that one of the arbitrators has proposed to incorporate them in the final decision which is being drafted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Proposed decision.

As a minor point of procedure, it is customary on the arbitration workshop to present edits (other than minor typos or semantic fixes) either as comments to the existing proposal or as a new alternative proposal, rather than make substantive changes directly to an existing proposal. In this instance, your doing so was completely harmless (and as I said improved the finished product), but if I'd been a party to the case it could conceivably have been more disputed, so I just mention that. Thanks again for your work on the case. Newyorkbrad 22:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I didn't step on your toes too much, but I pretty much intentionally ignored the rules of arbcom's domain. I know they dislike threaded discussion, want people's comments put into nice pigeon holes, and like having 8 different versions of a proposal even for minor wording changes for some reason...but it does not seem to be sane in the general sense; thus ignore it and use threaded discussion like every page other than arbcom pages and edit things since it is a wiki. I tend to think I have my wits about me most of the time, but if you think I am too bold revert me or leave me a message. Kotepho 23:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My toes are fine, and if I had a question about your edits I should have mentioned it earlier anyway. I operate, both when I contribute proposals to the workshops and when I serve as an Arbitration Committee Clerk, that the format the arbitrators have laid out makes it easier for them to decide the cases, which is after all the point of the pages, but I do agree that for those who aren't there all that often the complexities of those pages might become tiresome. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Banner_logo_campbells.gif

Per your request on DRV, I have restored Image:Banner_logo_campbells.gif and reset the timer. When you add the rationale, please also add a source. Thanks. --BigΔT 06:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dalmenyhouse-comp.png

Since you were the only contributor to Image:Dalmenyhouse-comp.png, I went ahead and speedy-deleted it under G7 - author requests deletion. In the future, though, PROD is only for articles, and you can request deletion of material where you were the only editor by adding {{db-author}} to the top of the page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point was it was needed temporarilly for discussion and I did not want to forget about it later. If I tagged it g7 on upload no one would get to see it. I had considered putting it under one of the maintanece categories such as untagged images that would get deleted in 7 days or something like {{#ifexpr: {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} > 20070810000000|{{db-author}}||}}, but that would require the page to be parsed after the time still and I thought prod would make my intention more apparent. I guess not. Kotepho 12:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]