Open main menu

Contents

FP PromotionEdit

This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Bilberry bush and moss in Gullmarsskogen ravine.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bilberry bush and moss in Gullmarsskogen ravine.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

 

/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Mrs. Carter,Edit

I have a question, maybe you know what to do.Suddenly I can no longer upload photos to Wikimedia. Everything is going well, until the moment is asked: publishing. Then I get the error message: An error occurred while opening the file for the ZIP check. Can there be a malfunction at Wikimedia? Sincerely,--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Agnes Monkelbaan, sometimes in the evenings I too can get very strange messages when I upload photos because there are so many other users doing the same thing and the servers get overloaded. You can try again a bit later or use another web browser. I alternate between Explorer and Chrome. I will see if I have an image that I can try to upload and see if I get the same message as you. DO you use the "Upload Wizard" (The page you get when you click on the link in the left column on Commons) or do you use some other way? All the best, --Cart (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I have tried explorer and chrome. and have been busy for hours. I'm not going to succeed! Agnes.
Hello, I just had the same message and I did not managed to upload my file. I don't know from where that comes from. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Agnes Monkelbaan, Christian Ferrer: I just tested to upload and I managed to upload File:Sivik recycling station in Lysekil.jpg using the Upload Wizard. It is just a small mobile phone file, so maybe it slipped through. BUT I got a very strange thing: I got one image but two sets of data to fill in! I only filled in the one with the actual photo, and it worked. This all might have something to do with the Commons:Structured data/Development they are trying to get working. I haven't had time to read what it's all about, but I saw a discussion about it at QIC talk. There are a lot of new things they want us to fill in when we upload files and it might be clogging the system with bugs now at the beginning. --Cart (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I just tested uploading a new version of a big file (File:Cherry tree moving in the wind 1.jpg). Everything went well. In both tests I used Explorer. --Cart (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@MB-one: You seem to know something about Structured data. Is this what is causing these malfunctions? --Cart (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Agnes Monkelbaan, Christian Ferrer: Ok, something is definitely off in the system. I did a quick processing of a file and tried to upload it first using Chrome and then Explorer plus Upload Wizard. Both times I got the same strange message you got. A ZIP file is usually used when you upload a lot of data, so just to test things, I tried to upload the same file, but just the plain out-off-camera version and that worked with Explorer (File:Pine with some snow in Brastad.jpg). My guess is that the additional info stored on the file from the post-processing program is doing some strange things with the system right now. I think it's best to wait a while, probably until tomorrow and see if this gets fixed. I will keep an eye on the technical pages and see what's going on. Hopefully I will have some answers for you later. --Cart (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid my technical knowledge is too limited to help here. --MB-one (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Agnes Monkelbaan, Christian Ferrer, MB-one: This is weird... I tested if I could upload the processed files, the one that I got the strange message about, over the out-of-camera photo I managed to upload. That worked! So it seems you can upload photos if you start with uploading the unprocessed file and then add the processed version on top of it. Not exactly optimal though... --Cart (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Good morning everyone, I am going to wait a few days to upload my new photos. I have been busy for many hours and have tried everything. There you will be stressed on. Maybe Wikimedia will solve the problem soon. Thanks for all the responses. Greetings--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Agnes Monkelbaan: You can always try an alternative way to upload images. Recently, I've been having some issues with Upload Wizzard too, but Commonist works just fine. --Podzemnik (talk) 04:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  Comment Thanks for your response. I also looked at the alternatives. But don't get it. because I don't speak English.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Beste Agnes Monkelbaan, Als je me schrijft, kun je in het Nederlands schrijven. Ik kan er eigenlijk veel van begrijpen, omdat ik een paar Nederlandse vrienden heb. En ik kan wat schrijven met veel hulp van Google translate, zoals ik nu gebruik.   --Cart (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Dag mevrouw Carter, Dat zou heel handig kunnen zijn. Hartelijk dank voor de mogelijkheid die u mij biedt. Meestal plaats ik 5 foto's tegelijk op Wikimedia. Anders is het zo'n gedoe als je ze stuk voor stuk moet plaatsen.
Morgen gaan we naar de Hortus in Haren om foto's te maken. Prettig weekeind toegewenst,--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Agnes Monkelbaan: Meestal doe ik hetzelfde, waarbij ik alle foto's in één reeks upload. Het scheelt veel werk om alle teksten en informatie te schrijven. Ik benijd je reis morgen! De lente is hier net begonnen. Prettig weekend jullie allebei, --Cart (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your suggestion. I'm going to see if I will succeed. Have a nice weekend--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Need your presence at Featured sound candidatesEdit

  We request the honor of your presence at Featured sound candidates
Dear W.carter,
Featured sound candidates needs your help and you can help by reviewing , nominating your sounds for the FS Tag.
You can start reviewing/nominating sounds now.
-- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 20:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

FP PromotionEdit

This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Cog wheel on a huge crane claw - 1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cog wheel on a huge crane claw - 1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

 

/FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the FPCBotEdit

Hey W.carter,

I just finished analyzing the script (it takes time, 1271 lines!) and I found that it is designed to remove withdrawn candidates if there is already one withdrawn in the candidate list, that means you must have a withdrawn candidate all the time to get it(the older one removed, still it won't remove the newer) removed I think it's not a bug but a feature as it's always good to have different examples for the new comers, yes, it will remove them after 9 days. Why not test this by 2 test noms ? I will withdraw these after adding some fake votes and check if it really removes the older one. -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 18:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Bot Will close withdrawn nominations within 24 hrs if there are more than one -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 18:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
See Code at https://pastebin.com/raw/ewq5LyYW
  • Hi there, much better to use my page. The thread just evolved from a comment on that nom page. I am going away tonight with only my phone, hopefully I will be able to take a look at all this tomorrow night. Good job! --Cart (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Eatcha, a really fantastic job going through all that code and finding what might be causing this. I hope we are not wearing you out. You are doing a lot of good things here.  
The tests are a good idea. You could add links to this(these) discussion to the noms so that people can find out what is going on in an easy way. I see that the code does mot mention "FPD", that should be included. That template might have been created after the original program was written. When we have the result of the tests, I think it might be better to skip the "one withdraw/FPX/FPD left". The "wait one day" command is good though because people can change their mind or another user can take over the nom.
While we are at fixing the code, is there any chance we can add/allow some other voting templates too? {{weak support}} {{strong support}} {{weak oppose}} {{strong oppose}} People are using them from time to time, but the Bot will not recognize them and I'm tired off having to tell voters about it and correct things all the time. If I remember correctly only {{neutral}} is accepted and not {{n}}; both should be working. There is a current nom where both are used. If it goes all the 9 days we could see how the Bot will read them.
On FPC, there is also an FPX at the moment that has not been edited for 24 h. We can see if it will get archived. All we can do now it wait and see. Thanks again for your hard work! --Cart (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Supported templates: The supported templates are in the tuple at https://pastebin.com/raw/Hx0KGFg0
Will add strong and week templates to the tuple after testing all the templates -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 09:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Eatcha, please add both the strong and weak ones; both are in use. I don't think the remove should be added. The delists are not used very often and they must be handled manually anyway since there are too many things in a delists that require human interaction. I think that is why there are not a lot internationalization for that part. --Cart (talk) 07:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Are you sure that weak/strong ones are not counted ? I will need to test it before a pull request, I just checked it's in the tuple so must be working IMO --Eatcha (Talk-Page) 09:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
It hasn't been working for a year or so, the bot count has been off. You don't need to create another test for that, you can just add a weak/strong vote to the nomination I have up and running. Please leave a note after the vote that you are using that template to test the Bot with my permission. I don't think it will succeed but I will let it run until the Bot picks it up so it's a good place to do the test. Probably best if you 'oppose' so we will have the answer in a 5-day fast close.   --Cart (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
If you take a look at the tuples you will find that [Ww]eak support , [Ww]eak oppose and [Ss]trong support are already in it, according it the bot must be counting these 6 templates (assuming S/s and W/w are diffrennt) I only need to add [Ss]trong oppose to it(the tuple). The biggest problem is bot pulls last edit time from the page-history, no way to fool it by back-date-signing. -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 10:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
{{n}} is not in the tuple, so I'm sure it won't be counted, I will add this in the pull request -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 10:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
BTW, do you know any nom where [Ww]eak support , [Ww]eak oppose and [Ss]trong support were not counted by the FPCBot --Eatcha (Talk-Page) 10:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I wasn't suggesting we back-date-sign anything, we will have to let all the test noms run as usual. The 5-day I was talking about is in the coding and it is working just fine. After 5 days, a nom with 10 support and no opposes OR a nom with support only from the nominator and the rest opposes, will be closed early by the bot. In any case 5 or 9 days, the nom will be closed by the bot and we can see if the votes are counted by the bot or not. I should do so, but will it... I have corrected this a few times, but I really can't remember on which noms since there are quite a lot of noms. --Cart (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Any extra templates ?Edit

Hey W.carter,

Do you know of any additional templates that users are using despite being told not to do so ? I actually don't want to send many pull requests, bengtsson is really very busy and I don't want to disturb him by sending many pull requests just to add a template each time. Thanks -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 17:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi there Eatcha, Those four strong/weak + the n/neutral are the only ones I have come across in voting. I checked with Category:Polling templates and could not find any more. Just remember to add "FPD" to the line with "withdraw" and "FPX". Bengtsson? That's a Swedish name. :-) Sounds like you are "trapped" between two Swedes now. Tell him *Hallå där! Tack snälla!" from me. :-) --
I already added FPD, it will act same as FPX. But what to do about the code that prevents removal of withdrawn noms if there are not 2 withdrawn noms at a time ? Should I remove it too ? I don't know, because It looks like he added it so that a new user can see all types of templates in use. OK, I'll send that line with the pull request -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 17:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
E: I think it is best to pull that one too. As soon as an FPC is withdrawn, it should be closed and removed from the list. That is the way we have done it for a few years now. New users will get advice from older users on how to do things. We could maybe instead add that option to the FPC intro/rules. I guess that we don't want it around too much since new users are very happy to "nominate and withdraw"–repeat and it is exhausting for the FP community. --Cart (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
By soon what do you mean ? Less than 24 hours ? -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 18:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
E: Sorry, my mistake. I mean after 24 hours. Let's give all of them a day in case someone change their mind. From what I see now some users are a bit too quick to close some withdrawn noms. Oh, well that is their problem, but we don't have to be so hasty with the bot. --Cart (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Okay then, codes are ready, will send the pull request after all the test noms are checked. -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 18:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
E: Great! Thanks! You are a gem for helping us with this!!!   --Cart (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Lucas and Cart, I asked bengtsson to provide me full write access on the version control platform. If he provides me the right to commit I'll try to add all templates from Commons:Polling templates into the allowed list (tuples) ? There are templates like {{OE}}, {{Oversaturated}}, {{PCA}}, {{UE}}, {{Works for me}} and {{Amazing}} etc, they can be very useful if added. You both look interested in it, what are you opinions ? -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 21:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I won't be able to reply for next 6hrs, it's 3 AM where I live. Need to sleep now -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 21:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Good night! Sleep well. I don't think they should be added since they are comment templates and not voting templates. They are ambigous. Let's stick with only the s,o & n versions. It may sound boring, but we need to keep things a bit strict at FPC since voters have a tendency to flip out if given too many options. It makes it hard to get a good overview of the voting. After all, it is FPC and not a chat room. And since the above templates are usually used as comments in nom discussuions, they will then be counted as extra votes by the Bot. In that case people will be voting without meaning to. --Cart (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok then, I'm not adding these extra templates -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 04:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Eatcha: Thank you! I look very much forward to the next and upcoming Bot runs to see what happens. :-) There are a lot of withdrawn, closed and not closed, noms that should have been fixed by the Bot if the "one withdrawn left"-system had worked. The list looks very messy at moment and I long to have it in order again. There was also a good example of when people change their mind. Two or three users arguing over a withdrawn nom. Shows that the 24 hour rule is a good idea. Fingers crossed it will all work out now. :-) --Cart (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion over there over who should be nominator is hilarious. I didn't know nominating is such a serious business. I agree that only pure voting templates should be allowed and no commenting templates (but they don't do much harm because the bot wouldn't count them anyway). There is also a third category, the "voting retraction" templates, where I only know the {{unsupport}}. I once suggested this should be counted by the bot, but it's a rather tiresome template to manually count, because it means that the supporter doesn't want his support counted, which is usually placed somewhere else. I personally find the practice of striking (<s>{{s}}</s>) much clearer for everyone. – Lucas 08:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Yep. There really are all kinds of people here and that is why we need to keep the voting system a bit strict. Some fun is allowed, but not so much that it disrupts the voting. I commented on the {{unsupport}} here and I agree that the striking is better and clearer. --Cart (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not done yet, I still don't have access to the master branch of the version control system. I don't know what bengtsson did but looks like I can edit everything except the master branch. But the neutral and strong/weak templates should work now they were added by a pull request that bengtsson pushed into the master branch. I emailed him about the issue let's see what he does, otherwise I'm afraid that we may need to change the auto pull cronjob to pull from another repository, I can maintain the source on my fork -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 17:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Please keep the vote template testing at bayEdit

Eatcha, I see you are using foreign voting templates all over the place and declare them in your comments. While I fully approve of your work on the bot and am looking forward to the improvements, I find this is not respectful to the nominators (Cart also thinks this). Not everyone is aware of the bot testing so having random votes which only say "<<some foreign language>> template works as well!" is confusing to the nominators at least. I see other voters have latched on to this and are doing the same now. Please edit all your votes to not declare what you are doing, you can keep the actual templates in of course. Thanks! – Lucas 08:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I removed the comments -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 17:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Since this seems to be the template discussion page, can I suggest we try to restrict ourselves, when supporting/opposing, to use those templates/words, rather than "agree" or other variants. Remember it isn't just the bot who has to understand the vote, and people (esp. newbies) will get confused if we have all sorts of votes like for example "meh", "yup", "nah" or whatever else comes into our heads. Which templates currently count for support/oppose? Are the templates translated into the words for "support" in other languages? -- Colin (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Colin, Eatcha has already been told (and agreed) to take it easier with the testing. No need to rub it in. If you look at the thread above here, you will see that the only templates that are going to be allowed for the actual voting are the normal s, o and n + the weak and strong versions of them. The rest are just comment templates. Translations of 'support' and 'oppose' are already in the code for the bot. You can see part of that code in this diff or here. --Cart (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I wasn't really being critical, just adding caution. I spotted a "Agree" vote in the test noms and thought that was just confusing, and hoped there weren't plans for other vote terms. If "Agree" is a actually just a comment template, then that's also confusing and I'd strongly discourage using that. People can just, you know, use words if they agree with another person's comments. -- Colin (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • What you saw was an old (2009) Portuguese translated version of the polling¨template {{concordo}} that for some strange reason is still in the code for 'support'. Spotting these odd templates in other languages can be tricky, but it is not a template that should be among the actual votes at FPC. One of the bugs in the Bot that needs fixing. (Btw, think/hope you've got a typo in your first sentence.) --Cart (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Fixed. -- Colin (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Earth 2019 i Sverige har startat!Edit

Hej! Varmt välkommen att vara med i fototävlingen Wiki Loves Earth, som pågår under maj månad. Ditt deltagande hjälper till att dokumentera Sveriges naturreservat och nationalparker och visa upp dem för världen genom Wikipedia och andra projekt. Dessutom kan du vinna fina priser.

På tävlingssidan, Wiki Loves Earth 2019 in Sweden, finns instruktioner, regler och annat relevant för tävlingen. Om du har några frågor går det att ställa dem på tävlingens diskussionssida.

Tack,
Tävlingsorganisationen, genom Axel Pettersson, Wikimedia Sverige.

Du får det här meddelandet då du deltagit i Wiki Loves Earth tidigare. --19:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • ...wow... thanks guys... now I'll have several days to do the photos! <<sarcasm>> This message is about a month too late. --Cart (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Some cleanupEdit

Good morning Eatcha, how are things going with the Bot? I think it's clear beyond a doubt that it isn't picking up any of the withdraws and it has completely ignored the FPX that should have been closed as a "fith-day-closing" days ago even without the FPX template. I will clean up the list of the "normal" withdraws but leave your test noms. New withdrawn are coming in all the time, so there is never any shortage of those. We will still have to wait and see what happens when the noms with the different s & o templates are closed. --Cart (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • A new development is also that the bot hasn't made are runs at all since 21:04, 22 May 2019, so there are a lot of 'featured' noms that are not processed. Do you know why this is? --Cart (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@W.carter:, Bot should pick them on the next run. I didn't knew that that they weren't using web-hooks. As I still don't have access to the tool on the tool-forge, I'm just assuming what might be the problems, the creator forgot almost everything about the tool-forge due to long time inactivity. I guess that the corn-job has pushed the source to the deployment on the tools-server, I can't confirm as I still don't have access to it. I'm traveling so I may not reply quickly. -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ping me 07:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Eatcha, ok we'll see what happens. Have a good journey, I'll keep an eye on things here in the meantime. --Cart (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Eatcha and Daniel78, I'm sorry to say but the Bot didn't do any of its three runs the last 24 hours or it didn't pick up any of the noms that had gone full time or were closed. I'm starting to get worried. I don't know what you guys are doing, but the Bot fixing is going backwards. To keep things running at FPC, I will process the skipped noms manually but I can't keep that up for long now. --Cart (talk) 07:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok, something happened! :-) Not sure if you just kicked the Bot or what, but at least it went into action and closed some noms at a non-scheduled run. Thanks! --Cart (talk) 08:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • More good news: The Bot closed This Nom completely correct. It disregarded the small pictures and it counted the 'weak support' template. Yay! :-D However I did have to close it as 'not featured' and archive it manually so it would not get into the FP system. The Bot still ignored both 'withdraw' noms with no edits for days. --Cart (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Btw, Eatcha, when you have the time, could you please remove the {{concordo}} from the tuple. It is a polling template, not a voting template and is can be ambiguous and confusing when mixed with votes. --Cart (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    Just A Fact: The bot will not work after as of 2020 in its current state. This is the most important thing that FPC needs to worry about. Want to know why this will happen ? The FPCBot uses python 2.7.13 and it will be dropped in 2020, what that means is the bot will not be able to work after 2019. We only have one option that is re-write the bot with Python 3.7.2 (the latest as of today). IMO we first need to save the bot then we can continue developing it. Regards, Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ping me 10:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Eatcha, I don't think anyone knew that. That is some serious news! Well, that gives us about 1½ years to work on a new one. I guess you took on more than you knew when you said yes to fixing the Bot, sorry about that! No idea who can fix that. I can only run things here at FPC, today's programming is unfortunately beyond me. --Cart (talk) 10:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • To be fair, the deprecation warning only started to show last week so is genuinely news unless one follows related developments very closely. See phab:T213287 if you're interested in more details. -- KTC (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Cart, if the bot doesn't appear to be running (as opposed to it's not doing what you think it should be doing features wise), you need to ping me to give it a kick. (Though in this case, it was crashing rather than not running at all.) -- KTC (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks KTC will do, even if I really hate all this nagging to keep things working. --Cart (talk) 10:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    It's actually 6months (January 1st, 2020), per phabricator -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ping me 11:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks for clarifying. I just read it as you had written it "after 2020" means after the end of 2020 to me. I guess we better get started looking for someone to do the big work. --Cart (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

More Bot newsEdit

  • When closing Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lake Pukaki, Canterbury, New Zealand.jpg, the Bot didn't count the {{apoio|Pile-on support}} vote. --Cart (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm porting the code to Python 3, by mistake(I often do these silly mistakes) I used the source which was about a year old that didn't had that template. I will add them after we finish the porting and checking it. As of the porting is going good. -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ping me 12:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Unlike test.wikipedia.org there is no debugging commons where you can test it, so we are testing it here/ -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ping me 13:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The Bot is not going to retire any time soon, it's now written in python 3.7.x .KTC checked it, works fine now. -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ping me 14:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "W.carter".