User talk:MGA73bot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi! This page belongs to a bot. The operater is from the Danish Wikipedia. Please contact me there --> da:Brugerdiskussion:MGA73

As a creator, I don't really like this bots current actions[edit]

Hi, I created many images that are on Wikipedia. This bot appears to be modifying their license per some license modification process that I somehow agreed to at some point. This is fine. My problem is that I don't understand what the license situation is now. Can I delete what the bot put in and just license my images under CC? Why might I want to do that? Can I revert my license to GFDL? Why might I want to do that. I think it would be helpful for the bot to give more info for the creator who hasn't been paying so much attention. i.e. linking to a page that is written for someone who hasn't been paying the closest attention to licensing on Wikipedia. PDBailey (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi PDBailey. If you look in the history of the file that have been changed there should be a edit summary just like this "Changing license in the big license migration". Clicking the link should answer your questions. --MGA73 (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I guess the point is that it didn't. I commented on this at that page, and two other editors agreed. PDBailey (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh.. Well I added a small comment there. Hope it will help you understand why we have this migration project. If you do not like it there is a possibility to opt-out as mentioned on the page. --MGA73 (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The issue is not that I object to the migration process per se, but instead the documentation provided to the image content creator who does not spend all his/her time paying attention to Wikipedia licensing. PDBailey (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I usually work on Commons where the subject have been discussed in and out and up and down and... I'm only here to help finish the migration so I did not notice that introduction could be better. I asumed users has been informed on the village pump etc. Never mind I will see if I can find a link or somthing that could do things a little better. --MGA73 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

GFDL - not eligible[edit]

I would just like to ask if my image will be deleted if I don't do anything? I read the link given to me and it didn't answer my simple question. LordBelly06 (talk) 07:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! The images should not be deleted just because it is not possible to migrate the license. They should only be deleted if they are not in scope or if copyright is not ok etc. Migration is a project to help others to use the images so we prefer that GFDL is not the only license. --MGA73 (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


This bot is adding {{Flickrreview}} to image a template that doesn't exist--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi IngerAlHaosului! I know it does not excist om Wikipedia but the template excists on Commons where it is very important that it is added. I have a list of images on Wikipedia with a free license on Flickr ~1,200 images. I have to rename some of the images during transfer because a file with the same name could excist or because filename on Wikipedia could be bad. Therefore adding the template on Wikipedia before transfer is much easier.
The template is added a few minutes before images are transfered to Commons and hereafter the image can be deleted on Wikipedia. So I hope it does not bother anyone. I could remove it after transfer but that would just be an extra edit on a image that should be deleted anyway. There is a minor risk that the template is added on nonfree images and if so it can/should ofcourse be removed on sight. --MGA73 (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Bot ignoring PUF and IFD[edit]

Several recent files tagged with possibly unfree and image for deletion have been moved to commons like File:Coconutoiljar.jpg and File:ClarkdaleCrop.jpg i ask this bot be stopped until safeguards to prevent this are in place.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. Such images should not have been on the list. Well sadly they are. There is only a few images left on the list so I will finish the bot run and try to search out the images on Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Once again thank you. I deleted the files you had tagged on Commons. I found out it was much easier to search on enwiki. I found no IFD and only a few PUF. I think the PUF could be kept so I did not delete them on Commons yet. If result is deleted on enwiki you are most welcome to nominate them for deletion on Commons. I also put them on my watchlist. --MGA73 (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Bot can't handle diacritics[edit]

On article Medellín it rendered the word 'Medellín" as 'Medell+â-¡n', breaking the link to an image.  pablo 12:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it and thank you for telling me. That should not be a problem but something did go wrong. I will have to do some search to see if there is other errors like that. --MGA73 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I found 11 pages where the bot made an error. I hope I found them all. --MGA73 (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I also improved the edit description so it now shows the file names. So if any mistakes happen in the future we can just look for any red links. --MGA73 (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons as of 20 February 2009[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons as of 20 February 2009, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Please delete this category and its contents - all has passed review.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. --Addihockey10 e-mail 01:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Bot error[edit]

This edit broke an image and an external link. (I realise this was five months ago, but I have no way of telling if the bug has been fixed yet.) --Zundark (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. It should not be possible but as you can see it was. Thank you for letting me know. I will ask someone if they have an idea what happend. --MGA73 (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


I don't think this edit was made on April 15 like the bot thinks it was... –Drilnoth (T/C) 23:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No the edit was not made on April 15 but the file (Commons:File:3rdMarineDivision.gif) has been on Commons since that date. --MGA73 (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... I see. The problem is, it puts the file into the non-existant Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons as of 15 April 2011, so it will likely never be seen by admins. I'd personally recommend just using the current date to ensure that the tag is seen and acted upon. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes I know about the red categories. An easy solution (if you know how to fix the code) is to let the template categorize in the "top category" if sub category does not exists. And untill that is done I have a link here User:MGA73 that I use to "hunt" files in red categories. --MGA73 (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Nevermind then. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T/C) 16:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
"All members" categories created: Category:All Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons and Category:All Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons. –Drilnoth (T/C) 17:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
That should help :-) --MGA73 (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


Why did MGA73bot do this? The file had not been moved to Commons, and MGA73bot had even marked it as ineligible for migration. And .pg is not an appropriate filename extension for a JPEG file anyway. --Zundark (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi! That is a very good question. It should not be possible. Bot should only change usage if the file was actually moved. I have never seen cases like that before and I have moved thousands of files. I moved the file to Commons and checked. It is ok now. The license migration has nothing to do with moving the files to Commons. All free files can be moved to Commons. License migration is only about adding cc-by-sa-3.0 to files with the license GFDL. --MGA73 (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

NowCommons, but up for deletion on commons[edit]

MGA73bot (talk · contribs) is adding {{NowCommons}} to images that are up for deletion on commons. Not sure that ought to be the case. Is there a way for the bot to check for DRs at commons? [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10]. (The background story is that these were obvious copyvios on commons that I moved to with an FUR)--GrapedApe (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that there are some cases like that. At the moment the bot does not know how to check if the file is nominated for deletion on Commons. There is a lot of things that should be fixed before the bot works as well as I would like it to. Perhaps we should just skip all files that is marked with a unfree template on en-wiki. --MGA73 (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't be a bad solution. Besides, it seems to me that if there's a FUR on the image, there's a good chance it isn't free and ought to be deleted at commons. Is there a way to create lists of images with FUR at and are on commons? I'd be willing to help comb through to see which image is most appropriate to keep.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Running [11] should give you a list. When I ran the query there was 150 files. --MGA73 (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. A lot of them were already DR'd at commons.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes most of the files that is no longer on the list is most likely deleted on Commons but some may be deleted on en-wiki. Anyway instead of ignoring the files completely an alternative option was to add a {{Not moved to Commons}} instead. That way we could see that the file is on Commons but the file ends up in a "Be careful"-category. --MGA73 (talk) 07:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems like a good solution to me. Good work.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Bot malfunction?[edit]

This bot seems to be adding the same parameter redundantly many times over on some occasions, e.g. File:Chengdupanda1.jpg and several other images. Any idea why this is happening? Fut.Perf. 20:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I checked the file and the problem with the file was that the license template was substed. The bot should work when a correct license. --MGA73 (talk) 07:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)