Jump to content

User talk:Fbot/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Bot template

Hi! A minor note that the template should say status="unapproved" instead of status="inactive". Thanks! —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done -FASTILY (TALK) 08:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

KeepLocal template

Please consider honoring the {{KeepLocal}} template. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The {{KeepLocal}} tag, by itself, only mandates the retention of a local copy. It neither prohibits nor disallows the transfer of files to Commons. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

OK; perhaps I should restate; could you please consider honoring the KeepLocal template when the same file is already located on Commons." Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I'll blacklist the template for now while I work on that fix. -FASTILY (TALK) 06:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Skip images that should be in SVG format

Hi there. Could you please skip files tagged with {{Should be SVG|chemical}} when adding {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons|bot=Fbot}} to a number of files? Thank you. --Leyo 12:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC) PS. {{Convert to SVG and copy to Wikimedia Commons}} might be an alternative.

Sounds reasonable. The alternative can easily be done. I'll get on it. -FASTILY (TALK) 06:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Your bot is not following this request (see example). I don't want to rollback dozens of bot edits. --Leyo 07:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Crap. I'll come up with a human assisted-script that will assess each file in Category:Chemical images that should be in SVG format and change templates to {{Convert to SVG and copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. I won't be able to get to that until tomorrow though so I'll post an AWB request in the meantime. If the task hasn't been completed by then, I'll write the script and take care of the issue. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 07:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Fbot edit summaries

Could you please take a look at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#General notice to bot owners about edit summaries and see if the suggestions might apply to your bot? Feel free to add your own suggestions and comments there too. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

  1. 3 should be fairly easy to accomodate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Minor bug

Hello! When inserting the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template, the bot should skip images tagged with {{Uploaded from Commons}}, {{M-cropped}} or any redirect thereto. Such files are temporary uploads for use on the main page (most of which are derived from images already hosted at Commons). Thanks! —David Levy 02:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi there, I'm working with Fastily on this Fbot task. Theoretically, Fbot shouldn't be able to edit those pages, because it's not an adminbot, and anything with those templates ought to be full protected. However, since we all know that sometimes stuff falls though the cracks, I've added both of those templates to Fbot's blacklist (this edit), which will keep Fbot from touching any pages using either of those templates. Thanks for the suggestion/bug, Sven Manguard Wha? 03:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I think task 1 is counterproductive

Many public-domain or freely-licensed tagged images are not suitable for transfer, because they are mistagged/copyright violations/worthless self-portraits etc. There are plenty of human-tagged images to move first and which are higher-priority because they are much more likely to be appropriate for transfer. I think this task should not be going on to add to the backlog and dilute the higher-quality requests. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The exact same concerns were raised in the brfa for this bot. The bot adds files it assesses to a separate category, located at Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons (bot-assessed). Human assessed files are at Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons. The bot employs a complex whitelist/blacklist system, in which it tags files transcluding elements on the whitelist, but not the blacklist, for transfer to commons. If you believe the bot is too inaccurate (for the record, the bot has had a very low number of false positives, all of which have been quickly corrected through amendments to the white/blacklists.), you are invited to improve the whitelist and blacklist. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
That helps somewhat... I'll have to poke around in the category, but most of the images look good at first glance. Maybe you should not have the bot tag orphan images, because many orphan images are worthless and should not be transferred? I first saw the bot-applied transfer tag on what I'm pretty sure was an orphan image on the FFD page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
That's why I filed Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 5. Once that's up, finding unencyclopedic, orphaned free files should be a breeze. Please feel free to comment on the BRFA. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 02:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I was the person that raised the objection the first time around, and now I run a copy of the bot myeself. Why the turnaround? Yes, the bot might tag a bunch of stuff that shouldn't be tagged for transfer, but it's not the fault of the bot, it's because many humans botch their licensing, and for the sake of discussion, humans also tag a bunch of stuff that shouldn't be tagged for transfer, because humans don't understand the licenses either sometimes. In the end, 99% of the tags Fbot makes are good ones.
Furthermore, if you look at Fbot as a suite, it becomes better. Task #2 (the one you are talking about) tags things that should be tagged for transfer. Task #4 removes tags from things that should not be transfered. Task #5, if approved, will help flush out a great deal of... well... garbage that clogs the system, allowing for more file worker volunteer hours to be spent on files that are worth spending time on. Other upcoming tasks will continue to further the process of making the entire file system run smoother.
Fastily is an expert in the file namespace. A handful of other experts in the namespace have also chipped in on this. Trust us, we're the people that would have to wind up cleaning up the namespace should something go horrifically wrong, so nothing is going to go wrong. This is the best thing to happen to the namespace since file mover. It's going to make so many things so much easier.
Sven Manguard Wha? 07:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Images with poor sources

Recommend adding {{Bsr}} to the blacklist. Kelly hi! 22:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphan files

See File talk:Double Junction D with Wide Centres.JPG, etc., for comments. Tabletop (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-orphaned image tagged as an orphan file

The bot tagged a file which is used as a barnstar / award on multiple user pages as an orphan - see diff. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hm, the bot currently does not check for usage in the Wikipedia namespace. I suppose I can add that in. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Likewise here. --Avenue (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
And here. Also images are sometimes used on talk pages, like here and here and here. And this one is linked from Template talk:Reflist/Archive 6. Anomie⚔ 10:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks like we have a bug. I'll adjust Fbot5's code. Fbot6 should be by shortly to untag any files that are not orphaned. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Wrongful orphan tags

Maybe the Wiki-system is broken (or ineffective), but this file File:SE1878Jul29T.gif is used at Solar_eclipse_of_July_29,_1878 through a template substitution by Template:Solareclipse185_db and Template:Infobox Solar eclipse2. Something ought to be fixed since there are MANY such images! SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

More: 

(diff | hist) . . b File:SE1857Mar25T.gif‎; 00:57 . . (+20) . . Fbot (talk | contribs) (BOT: Flagging orphaned free file) 
(diff | hist) . . b File:SE1598Mar07T.gif‎; 00:57 . . (+20) . . Fbot (talk | contribs) (BOT: Flagging orphaned free file) 
(diff | hist) . . b File:SE1824Jun26T.gif‎; 00:57 . . (+20) . . Fbot (talk | contribs) (BOT: Flagging orphaned free file) 
(diff | hist) . . b File:SE1780Oct27T.gif‎; 00:57 . . (+20) . . Fbot (talk | contribs) (BOT: Flagging orphaned free file) 
(diff | hist) . . b File:SE1560Aug21T.gif‎; 00:57 . . (+20) . . Fbot (talk | contribs) (BOT: Flagging orphaned free file) 
(diff | hist) . . b File:SE1820Sep07A.gif‎; 00:57 . . (+20) . . Fbot (talk | contribs) (BOT: Flagging orphaned free file) 
(diff | hist) . . b File:SE1816Nov19T.gif‎; 00:57 . . (+20) . . Fbot (talk | contribs) (BOT: Flagging orphaned free file) 
(diff | hist) . . b File:SE1853Nov30T.gif‎; 00:57 . . (+20) . . Fbot (talk | contribs) (BOT: Flagging orphaned free file) 
(diff | hist) . . b File:SE1766Feb09T.gif‎; 00:57 . . (+20) . . Fbot (talk | contribs) (BOT: Flagging orphaned free file) 
(diff | hist) . . b File:SE1874Apr16T.gif‎; 00:57 . . (+20) . . Fbot (talk | contribs) (BOT: Flagging orphaned free file) 
(diff | hist) . . b File:SE1871Dec12T.gif‎; 00:56 . . (+20) . . Fbot (talk | contribs) (BOT: Flagging orphaned free file) 
(diff | hist) . . b File:SE1867Aug29T.gif‎; 00:56 . . (+20) . . Fbot (talk | contribs) (BOT: Flagging orphaned free file) 
(diff | hist) . . b File:SE1870Dec22T.gif‎; 00:56 . . (+20) . . Fbot (talk | contribs) (BOT: Flagging orphaned free file) 
(diff | hist) . . b File:SE1652Apr08T.gif‎; 00:56 . . (+20) . . Fbot (talk | contribs) (BOT: Flagging orphaned free file) 
(diff | hist) . . b File:SE1724May22T.gif‎; 00:56 . . (+20) . . Fbot (talk | contribs) (BOT: Flagging orphaned free file) 
(diff | hist) . . b File:SE1875Apr06T.gif‎; 00:56 . . (+20) . . Fbot (talk | contribs) (BOT: Flagging orphaned free file) 
(diff | hist) . . b File:SE1854May26A.gif‎; 00:56 . . (+20) . . Fbot (talk | contribs) (BOT: Flagging orphaned free file) 
(diff | hist) . . b File:SE1778Jun24T.gif‎; 00:56 . . (+20) . . Fbot (talk | contribs) (BOT: Flagging orphaned free file) 
(diff | hist) . . b File:SE1715May03T.gif‎; 00:56 . . (+20) . . Fbot (talk | contribs) (BOT: Flagging orphaned free file) 
(diff | hist) . . b File:SE1806Jun16T.gif‎; 00:56 . . (+20) . . Fbot (talk | contribs) (BOT: Flagging orphaned free file) 
(diff | hist) . . b File:SE1860Jul18T.gif‎; 00:56 . . (+20) . . Fbot (talk | contribs) (BOT: Flagging orphaned free file) 
(diff | hist) . . b File:SE1842Jul08T.gif‎; 00:56 . . (+20) . . Fbot (talk | contribs) (BOT: Flagging orphaned free file) 
(diff | hist) . . b File:SE1868Aug18T.gif‎; 00:56 . . (+20) . . Fbot (talk | contribs) (BOT: Flagging orphaned free file) 
(diff | hist) . . b File:SE1887Feb22A.png‎; 00:56 . . (+20) . . Fbot (talk | contribs) (BOT: Flagging orphaned free file) 
(diff | hist) . . b File:SE1896Feb13A.png‎; 00:56 . . (+20) . . Fbot (talk | contribs) (BOT: Flagging orphaned free file) 
(diff | hist) . . b File:SolarEclipse2019Jul02T.png‎; 00:53 . . (+20) . . Fbot (talk | contribs) (BOT: Flagging orphaned free file)
Already resolved here. For the record, {{Orphan image}} ≠ deletion tag -FASTILY (TALK) 21:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Stop tagging my user photo

--Trovatore (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Both files moved to Commons. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphan tags

Could you add something to the tag (this would also involve changing the template) that links to the contributions of the uploader immediately after uploading? That's the best thing about the Jason orphan images tool. Often orphan images are poorly described, and the only way of figuring out what they picture is to look at the uploader's contributions, but it's a bitch to click through to find the correct timeframe. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I know of no way to do that by changing the template, but it could be done in a userpage report by a bot. I suppose I could create a bot that does that, but it may be awhile before it's ready. What do you think? -FASTILY (TALK) 22:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I meant that the template would have to be modified to provide a parameter for the bot to add the link to the user's contribs. I think this would be really valuable. I won't be making any use of the templates until they provide this link, because Jason's tool is for now far superior due to the link. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Please remove your tags

Please stay from images I have uploaded! If you bothered to look at what you are tagging you would see that they are linked to a page I am planning to reqrite some day. That is why I spent a vast amount of time drawing and uploading them! User:Giano/Diagrams for Blenheim Palace - rewrite. Please remove your tags! Giacomo Returned 13:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well your excellency, bots are 'brain bye-passed idiots'. {{Orphan image}} ≠ deletion tag. The tag tag is used to denote the usage status of the file and aid in categorization and maintenance, nothing more. You may opt-out by applying {{KeepLocal}} to your files, or alternatively, by applying {{nobots}} -FASTILY (TALK) 19:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Unless I'm misreading your whitelist for files, {{PD-self}} images aren't supposed to be flagged by this bot. All of these images were tagged with PD-self, though. Perhaps this needs to be reviewed? Risker (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Pd-self files are supposed to be flagged. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Why? And why is the bot not simply adding the category for images that are already tagged {{KeepLocal}}? Risker (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Er...why not? The bot's task was to flag all orphaned, freely licensed files with {{Orphan image}} so as to provide a means of categorizing freely licensed, orphan images. This is not a deletion tag! And, the bot is programmed to ignore all files tagged with {{KeepLocal}} if that's what your asking. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I know it's not a deletion tag. However, is there a reason why it doesn't also respect {{{nocommons}} - which is a variation on the KeepLocal tag? Risker (talk) 04:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
It does now. Cheers, FASTILY (TALK) 04:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that fix. :-) Risker (talk) 04:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Fbot/Archive 1#Non-orphaned image tagged as an orphan file

I though you said you fixed this. I just had to re-revert your bot on some of the images linked from that previous thread. Anomie⚔ 02:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I did. As requested, the bot flags images without links to the Wikipedia and Article namespaces. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I am blocking your bot until this is fixed. I recently reverted [1][2][3] which are part of talk page discussions which will no longer make sense if the sketches are removed. The descriptions clearly state they are not suitable quality images for Commons. Your bot has also started edit warring at these pages [4][5][6][7][8][9] which need to be kept as they are sources of derivative works. SpinningSpark 07:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
You misunderstand the tagging I think. The image is orphaned, and should be tagged as such so it correctly lists in the orphan categories. It's got little to do with Commons. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, that might be the purpose of tagging, but the template placed on the page encourages one of two actions: move to commons or submit for deletion. In any case, bots should not enter into edit wars, even when they are in the right. SpinningSpark 08:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Then the template should be fixed if there's a problem with it. Or more reasonably, add {{KeepLocal}} to the concerned image, as hinted by the template. The bot is working up to spec as intended, and is exclusion compliant. The block is unwarranted. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, it's unblocked. I would still maintain the bot should not edit war. SpinningSpark 08:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't, if you tell it not to edit the page ({{Bots|deny=Fbot}}, per FAQ) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
You've got to be fucking kidding me. Spinningspark, as dammed difficult as it is, try to understand the purpose of this bot before making harebrained, idiot errors. -FASTILY (TALK) 08:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
File:BlockedBot.png
Here is the thanks I receive for taking the time to program a bot, and use my own system resources, and limited bandwidth to run it. Unbelievable isn't it?
As I said, the bot was edit warring. SpinningSpark 09:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
And how would a humble bot know that? You were senselessly edit warring with it so by you're own logic, you're just as guilty. Don't even. -FASTILY (TALK) 09:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
@Headbomb: Then maybe the spec was poorly designed? Also note that {{bots}} says "Address the root problem with the bot owner or bot community" and "Remove the template tag once the underlying problem has been resolved", not "Use this template permanently on a large number of images to prevent a poorly-designed bot from adding an incorrect tag". Anomie⚔ 10:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
@Fastily: That's what someone else requested. I pointed out that there are valid uses on other namespaces too. Why did you reply to me that you were fixing it if you weren't implementing the wider fix I pointed out was necessary? Anomie⚔ 10:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I should respond while Fastily is incandescant with anger, but there is a principle here. Bots are not equal to humans in an edit war. Bots cannot be reasoned with. If a bot is repeatedly reverting or re-applying an edit then the bot must be blocked until either the human is persuaded they are wrong or the bot owner fixes the problem. Bot owners should not become enraged by this (although they invariably are), it should just be seen as a procedural move on the way to resolving the problem. As for the templates, it is the bot (or their owner) who decided to apply those templates. When these are not strictly appropriate or misleading it is really for the bot owner to fix the issue, not expect other editors to deal with the fallout. SpinningSpark 11:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Shoot first, ask questions later? That's one hell of a philosophy. At least you had the sense to unblock the bot after you realized your mistake. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Sheriff-flowchart.gif tagging

I don't know what the criteria is that this bot uses to tag files, but it inappropriately tagged this file. Free files do not have to be used in article space to be retained. While I agree that free images not used anywhere should be cleaned up, a file that is in use should never be tagged. In particular this file is part of a discussion regarding a proposed process and is important to that discussion. Deleting it does nothing to help the project, and in fact harms the project. I've reverted the bot, and suggest changing the criteria to only target files that are in fact not used anywhere. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The pictures you flagged

They're not orphaned they're used on my user page. JamesAlan1986 *talk 14:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Added exemption for base userpages. Let me know if it tags anything in your user page again. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Definition of orphan image

Re [10] - where is this definition? It's not in the specified template.—An  optimist on the run! 19:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

First line: "This media is in the public domain or licensed under a free license, but it is not used in any articles, or is not widely used for a non article purpose requiring its retention.". At the moment, "not widely used for a non article purpose requiring its retention" = Wikipedia namespace. However, that may soon be subject to change due to an ongoing discussion. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Could you point me at the discussion please?—An  optimist on the run! 19:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
#File:Sheriff-flowchart.gif tagging -FASTILY (TALK) 20:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I was going to go and put forward my own arguments for what defines an orphan, but as you seem to have accepted the view that anything that's linked isn't an orphan, I won't beat a dead horse.—An  optimist on the run! 21:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Bots are only supposed to run if there is consensus for them. As such, bot operators are expected to operate bots in-line with the expectations of the community :P -FASTILY (TALK) 22:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Two points

Hi, re these (1 2 3 4 5). First, these are not supposed to be used on article pages, but on discussion pages, to illustrate various problems (such as discrepancies of behaviour between browsers) - some of them are still on these pages; some are now in the archive pages. Second, I only noticed them by checking my watchlist - I thought it was usual to template the talk page of the file's uploader if a problem was found with an image file. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

In accordance with the definition of {{Orphan image}}, Fbot flags images without file links to either the Wikipedia or Article namespace. Also, {{Orphan image}} ≠ deletion tag. Rather, this is a maintenance tag used to denote the usage status of a file and categorize it in Category:Orphan images. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I suppose that explains why so many images that are tagged as orphans are also tagged for deletion. ----DanTD (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
What the bot does and what I do are two entirely separate lines of business. The bot tags orphaned images. I use this tool, which is totally independent of Fbot, to nominate files for deletion. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand that. The problem is that one often leads to the other and the opportunity to remove them from the orphanage can slip away too easily. In my case, you tagged two images of mine as orphans this week, and I was able to fix those. The first was due to a rename that wasn't changed for the article it was intended for, and the second has a duplicate under a different name. Don't get the wrong idea though, because I'm not against what you or your bot are doing. ----DanTD (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Every single file that I have uploaded to English Wikipedia is specific to that Wikipedia, being uploaded to illustrate a particular issue (bug, or feature, if you prefer) under discussion in talk pages on this Wikipedia. They are therefore of absolutely no use on any other Wikimedia project, so please stop attempting to transfer them to Commons. Before tagging the files like this, please determine if such action is sensible. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Transferring to Commons

How do I get Fbot (and Svenbot) to stop trying to transfer File:Northern Rocky Mountains wolf.jpg to Commons? SilverserenC 16:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Why shouldn't that image be transferred? Seems like exactly the kinda of file we want over at commons rather than on Wikipedia. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Commons has a history of mis-managing image files and not notifying the uploading editor when images are put up for deletion and the like. I don't trust them with properly dealing with any image, which is exactly why I uploaded the image locally in the first place, as I do for any other image I upload. SilverserenC 21:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
As it says in the FAQ, if you don't want Fbot to tag your files for transfer to Commons, then you can either add {{Bots|deny=Fbot}} or {{KeepLocal}} to the file description. However, this will only ensure that a local copy is kept on Wikipedia; if the licensing is compatible with Commons, then it can/will be transferred, but a local copy will, in any case, be kept on the local project. Logan Talk Contributions 22:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was looking for, thanks. I don't care if it's uploaded to Commons, just as long as there is a local copy of it that is kept safe. I'll go and add that code. SilverserenC 22:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Again and again

Why so many repetitions? File:OstPatsEast.JPG has been flagged four times in four weeks, and many others have received similar attention. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The bot should indeed not be doing this. Let's block it until this is resolved. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Fbot (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Let's examine the four edits the bot made to the page:

  • [11] - Bot tags the file for transfer to commons. This is Correct.
  • [12] - Bot tags the file as Orphaned. This is Correct.
  • [13] - Bot is correcting my spelling mistake. This is Correct.
  • [14] - Bot seems to have retagged the file as Orphaned. Looks like there was a caching issue. Double-tagging is a very minor issue, if an issue at all. I've added code to prevent this from happening again.

Now, if it's not too much trouble, I'd like for my bot to be unblocked so it can continue what I was doing. Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 00:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Has the bot been updated to use the correctly-spelled templates from now on? And these edits are of extremely low value and should not be done on their own. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it has been. Awhile ago in fact. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Will the bot also skip articles already tag if the only thing it's doing is bypass the template's redirect? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The bot has always automatically checked for template redirects, if that's what you're talking about. (e.g. the bot will not tag a file with {{Orphan image}} if it already contains {{Orphaned image}}) -FASTILY (TALK) 01:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm asking if these edits are a thing of the past? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Alright, concerns are address (IRC convo), the bot may be unblocked. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Busy bot

No doubt each individual flag is justifiable, but is there a need to revisit each file so many times? File:Harlemlift.JPG is not exceptional in being flagged four times in a month. Can this presumably important work be done in fewer passes? Jim.henderson (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, I'll work on that. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate EULA

Fbot is tagging images with what purports to be a contract of adhesion expressed as an end user license agreement:

This is inappropriate behavior. The operator of FBot does not have the authority to threaten users. FBot is doing the transfer, and, per bot policy, the operator of FBot is responsible for its actions. --John Nagle (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me like it's just a reminder that if an editor bases an action of off this bot's tag (i.e., they move the image to Commons) that they will be held responsible if the move is improper. It's just a reminder that the bot could be wrong and that proper human review is needed before action is taken. At least, that's what I get out of it. I agree the wording could be gentler, but I don't see a "contract" here, and certainly not a threat.
Perhaps changing the line "By transferring this file to Commons, you acknowledge you have read this message and are willing to accept all and any consequences for inappropriate transfers." to something like "If you decide to transfer this image to Commons, you are responsible for any consequences for inappropriate transfers." Avicennasis @ 22:57, 15 Elul 5771 / 22:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The message is fine. It's big and obvious for a reason; the bot can't tell when users botch licensing, and so people doing transfers have to be extra careful. Mind you, there are plenty of botched manual tags, but that's besides the point. The point is that we want to make sure that we're not sending copyvios to Commons, we want to knock them off on sight. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

For moving this file into commons

Hello, I have read FAQ first, but I have a problem with other user to make Korea University's resident pic.

File:CJ International House.jpg

What I want to ask is that is it possible to turn it into wiki commons file following Commonshelper. Even though I read the message, finding out its status as electorate for wikimedia commons, I'm not sure it is capable of moving the photo without certain problem after transfer. Please check this file if possible. --119.200.90.176 (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Fbot damaged text description

A month ago Fbot tagged one of my images with {{Orphan image}}. But while it did so it also changed all instances of "&lt;" to "<" which completely damaged the image description and broke the {{Information}} template. Here is the diff

I hope Fbot hasn't damaged too many image pages in the same way...

--David Göthberg (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

File: Closed Sign

I moved it to here and I don't know if I did it right. JamesAlan1986 *talk 19:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 21:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

164,025

I'm just wondering where the specification for 405x405 or an equivalent ratio comes from. I see that's the number that User:Sven Manguard proposed on the bot's approval page, but where did Sven get that from? I just didn't think that Wikipedia had set any exact qualification for non-free content, and thought we still looked at this on case by case basis.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 15:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Fbot/FAQ#Task 9 Sven Manguard Wha? 04:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

BOT:Tagging non-free file with old revisions

The BOT job of "BOT:Tagging non-free file with old revisions" is a welcome sight!--GrapedApe (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! :) Cheers, FASTILY (TALK) 20:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Waste?

Is this (removal of {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}) not waste? Just delete the file and "problem" is solved.

I thought of doing it myself but I did not bother to start a RfB-thingie to get the approval. --MGA73 (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Files in Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons tend to sit around for awhile, granted that only about two admins work on the ~4000 item backlog intermittently. If anything, this is done to avoid cluttering up Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons and make life easier for those performing file transfers. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay if it actually make life easier for someone then it' ok with me. To me it just seems that we have a lot of users adding the move to Commons template but almost no users that actually moves files. Anyway it is not a problem for me - my bot skips files with a {{NowCommons}} :-) And it also does not care if there is a move to Commons template or not :-D --MGA73 (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

PD-US-1923-abroad

I see that {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} is on the bot's blacklist, but the bot added {{Orphan image}} to File:Brock Pride and Prejudice.jpg anyway: appears to be a bug. Thanks. Chick Bowen 16:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a bug; you're looking at the wrong blacklist. {{Orphan image}} tagging is Fbot task #5. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
So I am, sorry. May I suggest, then, that you add it to the blacklist? Since the tag in question says the image can be copied to Commons when, in fact, such images can't be, they really shouldn't be so tagged. Thanks again. Chick Bowen 23:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The tag only suggests that eligible files be moved to Commons, but it is no move to commons tag. I've modified the wording of the template to clarify that. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Busoni- Piano Concerto (2-po rdn) Mvt1.pdf

This file was marked by the bot. It is linked from Piano Concerto (Busoni)#Downloadable scores, although for some reason the Wikisoftware does not detect this. In addition, the other 4 movements are linked from this file page, so are indirectly linked from that article. I added the Bots template with a deny tag to all 5 movements to deal with this. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That wotks. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Fbot is still incorrectly tagging images as orphans.

Fbot has started tagging images as orphans again, even if they are linked in talk pages rather than used directly. See for example Special:WhatLinksHere/File:WP Screenshot - Infobox Uk Station.PNG. Please fix this bug or disable the functionality. — An optimist on the run! 22:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Does Fbot...

Remove the {{orphaned fair use revisions}} template after the offending revision has been deleted? I deleted a revision of File:PBS Logo.svg on December 8 and I see the tag is still there. --JaGatalk 01:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't at the moment, but it wouldn't be too difficult to add that feature. Would it be helpful if Fbot performed that task? -FASTILY (TALK) 01:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I think so, but only if it'd be easy to implement. Otherwise, a note to let us know we need to remove it manually would be helpful; I wasn't sure if I would be wasting my time or not. --JaGatalk 01:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not too difficult to do. BRFA filed at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 11. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Too big?

I see this bot flagged an image as too big to meet WP:NFCC#3b. I thought the 164,025 limit was pretty arbitrary, until I read the stale discussion at WT:BRFA#Fbot 9 where more than one person mentioned the "...official standard for non-free images at 100,000 pixels", "...currently-stated *ideal for most common image uses* is roughly 100K px" without providing a link to the official standard/ideal. The problem I see, is that 3b states: "Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace" without mentioning this official standard/ideal either. I always thought this was a user judgement call rather then some standard to be applied. Would you like to show me where this standard/ideal has gained consensus and explain why it is not mentioned in the official policy? Astronaut (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly why all edits made by Fbot Task 9 have been undone and why the task itself has been placed indefinitely on hold. I'll be starting an RfC on this subject soon to gain wider community consensus on the scope of WP:NFCC#3b -FASTILY (TALK) 23:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

38,000 orphan images

Hi Fastily, there are currently 38,000 + images in Category:Non-free images with orphaned versions more than 7 days old. I haven't checked more than a handful, but not one of the ones I have checked has any older versions (or indeed any newer versions). I haven't stopped the bot as it seems to be busy removing all the tags as we speak - is it going to eventually remove the lot? Apologies if I've missed this discussion somewhere else. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I run the bot daily, but I guess that hasn't been frequent enough. I'll run it right now. Btw - you can blame this guy for the current state of things ;) Best, FASTILY (TALK) 02:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll blame the pair of you in that case :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Bot tagged an image that was already tagged

Hi.

In this edit, Fbot placed a {{orphaned non-free revisions}} on an image that already had {{Non-free reduce}}. It should have not, since the new tag is redundant.

Any chance this can be fixed? Thanks in advance.

Fleet Command (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

How is it redundant? One says to delete the non-free revisions, and the other says the current non-free image has too much resolution. --JaGatalk 13:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The proper tag for this image would have been {{non-free reduced}} but not {{non-free reduce}} as a reduced file was already supplied (and not requested as implied by the current tag). But as both tags imply a reduction in-process, images with any of the two tags present should be ignored by the bot. --Denniss (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the bot should be applying {{non-free reduced}}, because it can't tell that the orphaned old revision is necessarily a larger version of the current image. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

bots|deny=Fbot issue

{{bots|deny=Fbot}} does not seem to be recognized by this bot even though the operator has previously stated it does - see User talk:Fastily/Archive 5#Fbot issue, maybe minor.

Blocked indefinitely since it does not have an "off" switch.

- J Greb (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Fbot (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Problem resolved. I was running an antique, 'bugged' version of the bot off of my server (which shows just how long it's been since the bot ran). Old version has since been updated. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Accepted as fixed. Are there any other old versions you hove laying around that also need a review, just in case? J Greb (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Re:File:People's_Republic_cover.jpg

Re:File:People's_Republic_cover.jpg

Bot tagged file with move to commons - but it may be better to wait for resolving puf. In other words, I believe that puf template should be added to blacklist (probably together with ffd and csd deletion templates) Bulwersator (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That will be taken care of in 12 hours or so, when Fbot task 4 is scheduled to run. -FASTILY (TALK) 10:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Plea for assistance

I note your having transferred a substantial number of photos from my camera into Wikipedia Commons. I am vastly complimented: several are considerably substandard but were the best I had been able to snap and incorporate into Wikipedia articles I was adding to. May I now seek your assistance in doing the same or at least enabling me to incorporate photos into a Wikipedia article which are online and older than being subject to Canadian copyright? For some reason I cannot manage this time around, though I have done so in the past. Please discuss. And many thanks. Masalai (talk) 11:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(May I here provide the several photos with copyright information for your advice as to how to enable one to get them into a Wikipedia article?) Masalai (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Superseded

Why does it want to move superseded images to Commons? (See File:FOV Target on Monitor.jpg and its history for an example.) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

  • That file is actually the perfect example. Often, superseded images should be retained so the attribution chain is visible and verifiable to non-admins. There, you uploaded a new version of the image but failed to credit the original author and failed to abide by the original images licenses--your derivative should be tagged GFDL/CC, not PD. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Again with the {{orphan image}} tagging of non-orphans?

This edit tagged a file that is linked from a talk page discussion and is tagged as {{Keep local}}. Therefore none of the advice besides "add {{Bots|deny=Fbot}}" in the template is at all helpful. I thought this was fixed a while ago. Anomie⚔ 00:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be because someone fucked up the blacklist. Fix. -FASTILY Happy 2012!! 06:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:File:INANT.JPG

Re:File:INANT.JPG

File is tagged as "priority candidate" and "orphan". Probably status of this file changed during edits of the bot but maybe placing "orphaned" tag should involve removing priority candidate status? Bulwersator (talk) 07:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That's probably because I have yet to run Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 15. I'll do that in a few hours. -FASTILY Happy 2012!! 07:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You wrote that File:Chris Ott cafe.jpg is not orphaned, but what has it? It is orphaned. It is a picture of ME. I am totally non-enclycolpedic. Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect tagging of used sound files as orphaned.

Fbot tagged File:Acetaminophen.ogg with {{Orphan image}}[15]. This file is in use at Paracetamol and Panadol and, so far as I can see, was also in use at the time of tagging. When I look at File:Acetaminophen.ogg#filelinks I see "No pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file" which is at odds with Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Acetaminophen.ogg. The file's history is also noteworthy.[16]This might not be particularly problematic except the file has also been nominated for deletion on grounds of "Orphaned/Unused, no foreseeable use" when it looks as if the first ground is false and the second is very difficult to sustain.[17] I have raised the same concern over several other sound files and, although Fastily has moved the files to Commons effectively withdrawing the delete nomination, his responses have not referred to the underlying problem of tagging.[18][19]

The other files I mention are now on Commons and so I can no longer see the histories but the files were [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], and [27] (this last is not yet on Commons). Other people have also pointed out similar non-orphaned files Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion#Recent_nominations.

Can someone with more experience of these things see whether the orphaned tagging is indeed going wrong to quite a considerable extent (at least with sound files) because perhaps tagging should be discontinued to some extent. Is it possible to check that such tagging has been done correctly? Thincat (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that tagging with "orphan" is not a major problem since there is a limited number of ogg-files. We just need to be carefull when files are nominated for deletion. I checked the ogg currently nominated for deletion and moved some used to Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
If this bot does not stop tagging files (ogg or otherwise) as "orphaned" that are not in fact orphaned, it may be time to review its approval. Anomie⚔ 02:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Could there be some reason why it is only sound files or ogg files that are being mis-tagged as orphaned? Many are certainly being tagged correctly. Perhaps it could be the way they are linked to in articles. I would have thought it more likely to affect all types of file. If it is only ogg files and there is no immediate remedy could the bot be programmed to skip these files? Is there a bot that can can reliably detect mis-tagging? How best to warn the future "deleting" admin at FfD that many files have been nominated in effect solely on grounds of {{orphan image}} and so each nomination claim cannot be taken at face value? Thincat (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
It looks as if Fbot tags all types of free file as {{orphan image}} when the only inbound links are from User:, User_talk: and File: (and, I think other non-main spaces). (Note: the sound files mentioned above were all linked to from main space). For example File:Appoggiatura.png tagged here and linked to both now and at the time of tagging from User:Hyacinth/Images and . I expect this is a feature rather than a bug deriving from fair use considerations. Maybe Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 5 assumed this behaviour. At the time of approval Template:orphan image said this but now the wording has been changed and does not fit the apparent behaviour of the bot. I think any inbound links should mean a free file is not orphaned (except, of course, links for some types of file maintenance, possibly such as User:Multichill/Free uploads). Thincat (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Orphan image

I nominated this template for deletion Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_5#Template:Orphan_image Bulwersator (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Removing previous revisions

Hello Fbot. I was just wondering if you could delete all the previous revisions of these two files: File:Google+_interface.png and File:Google_maps_screenshot.png. Thank-you. TrebleSeven (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Fbot is a bot, so it can't do any of that. Worry not however, an admin will have done the job by the week's end. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 20:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect tagging of {{Orphaned non-free revisions}}

As a test, I used WP:REVDEL (under WP:RD5) to remove just the image data while keeping the revision information intact for File:Supermarioworld map.PNG. I see today that Fbot didn't recognize this, and has retagged the image. Please fix the bot. Anomie⚔ 15:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Er...you're not supposed to use revdel to delete old image versions. Standard practice it is to normally delete the old image version, by scrolling down to "File History", and clicking "Delete" (not del/undel) in the left hand column. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I've just fixed your error. In case tl;dr, do not use revdel to process files with old revisions. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Why not? Anomie⚔ 20:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
We've always enforced WP:NFCC#5, through normal deletion which happens to also be long standing precedent. By your logic, we would be revdeling all orphaned non-free files. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
So the answer is "We've always done it that way (because deleting files predates RevDel), so we won't consider change". Your strawman about orphaned non-free files makes no sense, BTW. But whatever, I don't care enough to fight hysterical raisins on this. Anomie⚔ 03:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Fastily asked me to comment here. There are no licensing concerns when it comes to deleting a file revision in its entirety on account of the uploader not having rights to the revision as it is not free. The deletion of the revisions individually predates using RevDelete. It is easier on the bot and script side to deal with an entire deletion, plus it may be confusing as to why a file revision appears without a thumbnail/file. It is simpler to delete the revisions outright. Finally, it becomes screwy when you mix RevDelete and normal deletion—the two should not be combined. Maxim(talk) 23:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

OTOH, I seem to remember some dicussion a while back about the practice of deleting the high-res version after {{non-free reduce}}, and the possibility of the file later being determined to be free but no one knows that the higher-res version could be restored. But whatever, I don't care enough to fight hysterical raisins on this. Anomie⚔ 03:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Fbot (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Accept reason:

The bot is still editing far too fast. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fbot/Archive_1&oldid=1143000164"