Open main menu



adding birth year cat when one already existsEdit

In this diff, the bot adds a specific birth year category when "1600s births" already exists. The exact birth year of this person is not known, per the Wikipedia articles. I had removed "1600 births" earlier. Can you adjust the bot to look for any existing birth year category and not duplicate/add it if there is one? A little surprised it's not now. For many historical figures the wikis are going to have varying information on birth/death years.... Thanks -- Boo-Boo Baroo (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The bot was not suppose to be adding birth categories when one existed, but I guess I did not take into account that we can have approximate date and some wikipedia might have incorrect exact date. I will adjust that for future runs. --Jarekt (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Another example of this kind is [1]. This example also shows that possibly a lot of wrong information may result in this bot action, because some wikipedias may simply contain wrong data as in this case the Swedish wikipedia the wrong year of birth 1367 from obscure sources, whereas in the modern scientific literature the birth is normally given around 1376/1377. This diff shows another variant, Russian wikipedia assigns category 670 births, whereas the year of birth can at most be stated "around" 670; most wikipedias state no year of birth at all. In general, when there are conflicting categories for birth or death, like 670 births vs. 7th-century births, the more specific information will most likely be wrong. Cheers --FordPrefect42 (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
In the past runs I only added birth/death year category if it was missing on Commons. In the future I will also not add them if birth/death decade or century are present. I realize that some tiny fraction of Wikipedia categories are wrong, I fixed by hand many of them at Commons:Database reports/Unbelievable life spans. However I only look at ~10 biggest wikis and assume that most of the time they are correct. --Jarekt (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Malformed Creator template made by JarektBotEdit

I only stumbled over this one. Authority field. May be something to look into // moogsi(blah) 10:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that is something I broke a year ago. I have not seen that before.--Jarekt (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Ha I didn't notice the previous edit was the culprit // moogsi(blah) 14:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

OTRS bot runEdit

Hi Jarekt. Could your bot do such text replacements, too? --Leyo 12:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Not easily. I do not think I can call java script, and designing all those replacement rules from scratch seems like a big job. While my OTRS bot run will touch only files in Category:OTRS templates with 2 or more unnamed parameters --Jarekt (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I guess that at least the RegExp code for |Date={{Date|2010|05|25}} (original upload date)|Date={{original upload date|2010-05-25}} would not be too difficult to implement. --Leyo 13:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

PD-old-100 for artist that died in 1919Edit

Hello! I am curious as to why your bot added the parameter "PD-old-100" in a PD-Art-template for an image by an artist that died in 1919. See edit here. --Bensin (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not know how that happened I was only adding "PD-old-100" to images which:
This image does not seem to meet any of those conditions. Thanks for letting me know, I will look if I can find more like this one. --Jarekt (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem! Thanks for looking into it. --Bensin (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrong link changesEdit

Hi Jarekt. Your bot wrongly changed a source link here, which I had to fix. Please check if this happened earlier & fix it. Thanks. Trijnsteltalk 16:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I have checked other ~200 edits from the same batch, looking for word "facebook" and the file you found was the only one with issues. I looked through all the edit sizes and found one more file with wrong edits outside OTRS template. I also looked through ~50 random edits from the same batch but all other edits were as intended. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Jarekt (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Line break removedEdit

Could you please check if this bug happened more than once? Thanks. --Leyo 08:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

There were almost a thousand of those - all corrected now. Thanks for letting me know. --Jarekt (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. --Leyo 07:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

File:2007-11-13 Bob Mintzer u. Christian Stock Trio, Harmonie, Bonn IMG 2035.jpgEdit

What was wrong with File:2007-11-13 Bob Mintzer u. Christian Stock Trio, Harmonie, Bonn IMG 2035.jpg?

I changed "== {{int:license}} ==" to "== {{int:license-header}} ==" – does this solve the "problem"? --Hasenläufer (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Minor editsEdit

Why does the bot not mark its edits as minor? I have 20+ email notifications know, but that edits are minor and do not need my attention.Anatoliy (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I often have a hard time telling which edits should be considered minor and which are not. I do not use "Hide minor edits from the watchlist" option in the preferences, and keep on forgetting to use that flag. Also some of my runs yesterday, related to Category:Language templates with no text displayed are kind of tricky - I did a lot of testing on them but I would still prefer for other to look at them in case there are any trouble. --Jarekt (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Problem with empty language template fixEdit

Hi, it seems that there is a little problem with this edit, the source isn't correct. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I will see if I can find more of those. --Jarekt (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Free screenshotsEdit

This edit doesn't make much sense to me.[2] --Nemo 07:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Media without a license: needs history check has more information on why and how the category is added, but in general the category is added to images where no valid license was detected. In case of this image {{Free screenshot|license=}} template is not a license. It just says, that it is a screen shot of a software which is distributed under the following free license.... All images in Category:Media without a license: needs history check technically have no license and in the old days would be tagged by {{No license}}, but images with that tag are routinely deleted after some number of days, without closer look on why the images are missing licenses, so I created this category. --Jarekt (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Many of these {{Free screenshot}} tags have licenses and explanations, just not templated licenses. See, for example, File:Accueil-dillo-0.8-med.png, which has free licenses explained in the license= parameter. Usually, if the {{Free screenshot}} template appears with the license= parameter, it means someone has explained the license. Also, a large number of them contain no more than de minimis copyrighted content and so are probably public domain anyway. (That a bot would have 7-day-speedied people's works automatically with {{No license}} in the past, even when it's known that a certain template indicates a good-faith effort to explain a license, is a bit depressing. I'm glad we're dealing with just a category here. Hopefully nobody will get "clever" and try to destroy everything in Category:Media without a license: needs history check after so many days.) --Closeapple (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Tl CreatorEdit

To avoid duplication of information, no need to add the tl AC in the page with AC information included in TL creator. (see Regards, --Accurimbono (talk) 08:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I first added {{Authority control}} [3] and some time latter the {{Creator}} [4]. I do not see any issues with my bot edits other than not removing redundant {{Authority control}} after {{Creator}} was added. --Jarekt (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Erroneous additions to Category:Media without a license: needs history checkEdit

How do we stop these [5] & [6]? This is an obscure source-specific licence, but it's considered to be valid. The template {{License template tag}} is already transcluded onto the image pages, which I thought should stop it happening? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a similar situation with the STF licences (Brazilian politicians) Andy Dingley (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

If all these Florida images have the same usage conditions try adding {{Attribution}} with proper credit line to the source tag. If the conditions are not similar for all images, tag the images instead. The conditions mentioned in the tag do not qualify for cc-by-sa but only for Attribution. --Denniss (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Andy, The images you pointed to do not have a license template as far as I can see, so I do not thing those are "Erroneous additions". Thay do have an odd Infobox template {{Image from the Florida Photographic Collection}} but that infobox does not include any license templates. That is why most images from the Florida Collection use some other license template, see for example here. You seem to be mostly reverting the addition of tracking categories, like here without fixing the underlying problem, or letting others fix it. That really does not help since the images will just get tagged again. {{Image from the Florida Photographic Collection}} is a mess - it does not follow any template writing standards, and does not use standard template documentation. It needs a lot of work, and it looks like I already spend time fixing it, just to be reverted as pointless change. --Jarekt (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
It's a requirement that media be licensed, not that they use a small set of specific licence tags. Now your 'bot has to recognise the "licensed" vs. "unlicensed" states, so there has to be some degree of cooperation between the two systems. How does your 'bot work and how do editors adding licensing tags make these tags keep your 'bot away? I thought embedding {{License template tag}} was how you did this, but it seems not.
It is just wrong to add a CC-by-sa to media from the Florida Collection (and to a lesser extent {{Attribution}}). Florida haven't licensed it under that licence. It's not our right to change their licence. For that matter, content from Florida has been regularly deleted as inappropriate. I don't agree - I see Florida's licence as acceptable to us - but it is still Florida's licence, not CC's. Embedding one licence inside another is not the right solution to this. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


Louperivois Ψ @ 09:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Maria Newman PageEdit

Hi JarektBot. Being new to contributing on Wiki, I used photos that were given to me to use with permission, but perhaps I didn't cite them correctly? I am scheduling a time at a concert performance to take my own photos. I would be happy to release those to public commons. That said, I know the author of the photos personally. Is there a correspondence that you follow to verify the permission? What did I not state that should have been present? Sorry if my questions are redundant. The wii-how to is a bit overwhelming. Thank you.

CJBlevins C. J. Blevins (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

CJBlevins, I am not sure what image are you asking about. Perhaps File:Maria Newman.jpg, or deleted File:MariaNewman 2007.jpg or File:MariaNewmanPhoto JTallo.jpg? With either of those files, since you are not the photographer but you "Know the photographer", you should ask him to send an email like this to OTRS and that would be enough to keep the files. --Jarekt (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Jarekt: THANK YOU! You just solved a huge issue for me with this information. Question,once he writes the letter and the permission is obtained, how should this be cited within the document, or will they give me a permission code? I'm also assuming, he would need to submit this for public domain, or is there a way he can cite just for usage for this article?

Really appreciate your help and advice. FYI --I'm actually revamping the entire text. I realize there have to be more citings and I'm cleaning up with tables. I'm doing the revisions on my sandbox, then will resubmit here. Thanks for everything. ----CJBlevins C. J. Blevins (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

OTRS email should specify the file(s) in question and can specify any license which is allowed on Commons, and once it is sent and processed an OTRS volunteer will add proper template to the file. At this stage old files can be also undeleted if necessary. Drop me a note on my talk page (User talk:Jarekt, this page here is for issues with my bot) if you have any more questions related to files or OTRS in the future. Happy editing --Jarekt (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
This is awesome. Thank you so much for your help! Really appreciate it. :-) ----CJBlevins C. J. Blevins (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2013

Author / photographerEdit

Hi, In [7], you changed the qualification of the painter Edouard Gentils-Camby from "author" (correct) to "photographer" (not correct). That creates a false information. If this change was one of a number of automated changes to the same effect, other file descriptions could also have been affected in a similar way. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Bundesarchives is a photo archive not painting archive. I changed most of 80-90k files, this is the first case that I am aware of author being a painter not photographer. --Jarekt (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Strange editEdit

Can you remember the purpose of this edit? There seem to be more of those. --Leyo 08:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No it was some kind of mistake. I will try to find and correct those. --Jarekt (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Institution:York Art Gallery, YorkEdit

Institution:York Art Gallery, York 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 institution, 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.

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 (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | 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)‎ | +/−

PatHadley (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "JarektBot/2013".