User talk:Mike.lifeguard/Archive 1

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello Mike.lifeguard, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; for it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon Signature icon.png in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! --Mike.lifeguard | talk 00:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having a split personality today? ;) --darkYin yang.svglama 14:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Testing Bot

Hi Mike.lifeguard. I heard on IRC that you are testing a bot here at Wikiversity today. Good luck! See you around. Mirwin 14:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the note. Hope I didn't cause too much disruption. Mike.lifeguard | talk 16:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Mike.lifeguard, the bureaucrat dealing with bots was informed about this request. ----Erkan Yilmaz (my talk page, wiki blog) 20:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I got a message from your bot today...

I received a message from your bot or from you today about the informational logo of Final Draft used in Wikiversity to identify a free product required by filmmaking students to complete their first assignment. The information you requested is on the image page and contact information is provided. That is a license issued from the company directly to Wikiversity for that image. If you have a problem with that license, I suggest you take it up with the management of Wikiversity.

I also received your second message about the images that I have uploaded either as part of the lessons or as homework from students. I believe that all of the 1000+ images and homework assignments that I have uploaded are completely documented per the requirements of the time. Again, if this is not satifactory to you, please take this up with the management of Wikiversity who recommened this way to handle students works and school illustrations. ~~~~ Robert Elliott 01:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Instructor of the filmmaking courses.Reply[reply]

Take Image:Face24mmtiny.jpg for example. There's no license information provided. This is clearly required, as stated on Special:Upload and Wikiversity:Uploading files. If you don't provide such information, that's fine. But an admin will eventually delete it, in all likelihood. This applies to any untagged images, not just the ones my bot found. Please note that I'm applying current policy; if admins take into account past practices, that's their business, not mine.
If you've provided something like "public domain" then I'm sure anyone sorting through the images will apply the proper tag for you. However, for untagged images, when the proper license can't be determined, there's really nothing to do but add {{nld}}, as in the case of several of your images today. If you want to find your unlicensed and untagged images, w:de:Benutzer:Duesentrieb has created some tools to do so. You can use [1] to find images with unknown license status, and [2] to find images which have yet to be tagged.
To avoid having your images deleted, you might consider ensuring that all your image uploads have the proper tags applied to them. If you have further concerns, please feel free to contact me again. Please note that suggesting that users contact me at en.wb is not an attempt to "hide" my activity. Quite the contrary; it's so that users can get the quickest response from me. This would be a case in point. You're welcome to continue leaving messages here; I can't promise the most prompt response if you do, however. I shouldn't have to point out that you've done the same thing. Your user and user talk pages at en.wb simply say to come see your corresponding pages here. There's nothing inappropriate about sending people to the project where you're most active. Please try to assume good faith in the future. Mike.lifeguard | talk 02:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe if you check the history of Special:Upload and Wikiversity:Uploading files that a short description of the source of the file was all that was required at that time. Robert Elliott 03:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fine. Please do me a favour and add a license template. The admins may or may not take past practice into account when looking at images with {{nld}}. Again, that's their business, not mine. Have a good night. Mike.lifeguard | talk 03:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other license issue

  • Licensing are of course necessary. However, where exactly is the wikimedia foundation policy specifying that tagging the image is the only way to declare it? Can the author not just declare on his userpage that he license all his image under GFDL? Note that the template says so does not amount to foundation policy.
  • There is a precedence in a similar instance- I have translated the mediawiki interface "makebot" into cantonese, and I gave my permission to license it under GPL on my talk page. Hillgentleman|Talk 02:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all, we're not talking about "Foundation policy." We're talking about Wikiversity policy (each WMF project sets their own policies locally, though they're generally similar). Wikiversity:Uploading files is a Wikiversity policy. Take a look at the section "Checklist for media file uploading." When you click save on any edit, you release it under the GFDL; there' no need for that extra notice on your talk page. When you upload images, they may or may not be under the GFDL, but the license must be GFDL-compatible (this is why PD, CC, etc. are permitted). Each image must have an appropriate tag applied. As I mentioned above most users will add the tag corresponding to declarations on the image page. For example, if you simply put down text saying "Public domain" then I'll change it to {{PD}}, which will add the Public Domain tag. However, when it's impossible to determine the correct license, the image gets tagged with {{nld}}, and you (should) get notified so that you can take care of the situation. Mike.lifeguard | talk 02:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In this case the wikiversity policy is the foundation policy by default. For there has not been a seperate discussion, on wikiversity, as far as I can remember, about means with which the contributor can declare the licence.Hillgentleman|Talk 02:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In short, Who said that there is only one way to declare GFDL/PD/CC licensing, and it must be a tag ? Hillgentleman|Talk 02:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're supposed to tag image uploads (or, at the very least, provide license and source information for each by some other means). I'm supposed to track down images with no license information and tag them. At this point, either the image gets tagged, or the image gets deleted by an admin. License templates are considered standard on all WMF project I've ever seen. Indeed, it seems to be standard here (policy, in fact). Mike.lifeguard | talk 02:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you are confusing policy with experimentation. Wikiversity has a problem with people changing things which look official but are really just someone trying out a new idea by installing new and untested features such as the TAGS and other features which are more an experiment than a policy. Just because it is there and we don't have the time or energy to fix it, does not mean it is right. And it certainly does not mean it is an official policy approved anyone. ~~~~ Robert Elliott 11:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • By the way, your job is to track down images which have incomplete or missing copyright info and add the missing info, not delete the image. Don't simply take the easy way out!!!! Robert Elliott 12:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FYI, it is marked as policy. As well, I don't have the ability to delete images on this project; I'm not an admin here. Mike.lifeguard | talk 01:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A more noble effort is to fix the policy. And you do not have to be an admin to do this. Robert Elliott 12:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think the policy needs fixing. The policy should be that images require a license template, and should be deleted if it's not provided. So far as I can tell, that's what we have here. Mike.lifeguard | talk 14:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You did not answer my question.

  • Who said that there is only one way to declare GFDL/PD/CC licensing, and it must be a tag ? Hillgentleman|Talk 02:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hillgentleman|Talk 14:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nobody. Mike.lifeguard | talk 14:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Then, let us note that 1.Wikiversity:Uploading files was taken mostly from wikipedia: and, to the best of my knowledge, there has not been any serious discussion on wikiversity on its status as a formal policy. 2. The key point in wikiversity:Uploading files is the licence -- as required by the foundation -- and not how to declare it. 3. There is no discussion of whether tagging is the only way to declare GFDL. As I can see, the authors of the text presumed that tagging is the way; that there are alternatives had not entered their minds. If Robert Elliot declares on his userpage right now that every file that he uploaded is released under GFDL or in the public domain, then they would indeed be so. 4. If at any moment wikiversity has the consensus that a tag is needed on top of a file being released under GFDL-compatible licences, one can use a bot to add the relevant tags. Hillgentleman|Talk 17:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • All true; all irrelevant. I've already said that if I'm aware of the licensing arrangements but it's not declared with a template that I add the template. If you look at my contribs, you'll find that I've done that here, as well as at Wikibooks. Please don't be sanctimonious at me. Mike.lifeguard | talk 03:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

policy for images without good source/copyright/licensing information

Mike.lifeguard: thanks for your efforts to bring some order to the uploaded files at Wikiversity. There have been a few past attempts to encourage Wikiversity participants to supply source/copyright/licensing information for uploaded files, but there has never really been a serious attempt to create a defined Wikiversity system for dealing with this problem. We currently have a short page section at Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion#Media files with no copyright information. I think we need to update Wikiversity:Deletion policy so as to include a defined plan for dealing with uploaded files that lack adequate source/copyright/licensing information. What do you think? --JWS 15:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikiversity:Uploading files is in the category "Wikiversity policy" If it's not policy, then it shouldn't be marked as such. Absolutely, you need to add something to your deletion policy if it's not there already. I'm shocked that this wasn't one of the first policies that was enacted. It does seem to me that current practice (though apparently not policy, since there isn't one) is essentially the same as that of Wikibooks. I imagine that would be a good place to borrow from in writing a policy. I may start a proposal if there isn't on the go already. Mike.lifeguard | talk 00:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In practical terms, Wikiversity does adopt many practices that are similar to those of other Wikimedia wiki projects. However, there was early consensus for allowing policy to grow organically here, as needed by this community. Since the Wikiversity community is relatively small, it sometimes seems like policy develops in slow motion....sometimes only after there is a "crisis". I recently added the Exemption Doctrine Policy to Template:Official policies because I think it is the intention of the Wikimedia Foundation that all the sister projects have such a policy. There may be additional parts of Wikiversity:Uploading files that should be designated as Wikiversity policy, but much of that page seems more like helpful hints than policy. --JWSchmidt 02:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In all honesty, it doesn't matter to me. I'm not active here, and have no intention to be. The only reason I even have an account here is that I was asked to run AWB by SB Johnny. If the community thinks it's helpful to have untagged images prepended with {{subst:nld}} then I'm happy to do it. Whatever happens beyond that isn't my business. That said, it seems like a deletion policy for images is fairly basic - it shouldn't be too hard to write up a good one and get consensus on it. (Which is a bit rich, seeing as en.wb has so many policies pending) Mike.lifeguard | talk 03:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Mike,

The image is from the Honda Website. You are free to delete it if this does not satisfy the requirement. i tried deleting it. oh well, you do it. Thank you.


I'm not an admin. Please ask one. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Template:Mbox is here. --JWSchmidt 21:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

THANKS! Mike.lifeguard | talk 02:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My user page

Thanks a lot. I used an in-line translator (google to not say it) to translate my french text. But I know that was not perfect. 16:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Mike's bot account

I blocked User:Mike's bot account. I do not understand this message. I have a very strong objection to any such warning that does not explain the specific problem. The first link provided in the message for how to respond is a dead link. This is incredibly unfair and unfriendly and unwelcome. If the bot is so poorly programmed that you have to include "Please ignore it if you've already provided license information for all your uploads." then I do not want the bot at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 01:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not my fault the toolserver is having troubles. The last line was included because there may be cases where I missed permission given in plain text. For example, here and here I made the permission machine-readable since the template was substituted or the permission was in plain text.
Also, I'm working from data about 15 days old. So if, in the last 15 days, information on some of these uploads changed (highly unlikely) or if I missed some plain text permissions (also highly unlikely, I was extremely thorough because I know that this wasn't a welcome task the last time I use {{subst:nld}}), then a notification would be false positive. If you can find a false positive, I'd be surprised. The only workaround for these issues would be highly server-intensive. It is not the fault of the bot, and is only my fault to the extent that I actually missed any plain text permissions (which I have yet to find). If you can point to a false positive where the bot made an error or where I was in error, please do so. Otherwise, please unblock my bot. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also the MediaWiki message for blocked users doesn't show the unblock template. This should be fixed ASAP. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have to mirror JWSchmidt's sentiment here. The bot left that message on my talk page as well and it took me a good five minutes just to figure out what I was supposed to do. I've seen much better done bots for this sort of task. Would it be possible for your to not run your bot on stale toolserver data and also to provide information about the actual files affected and steps necessary to fix them? sebmol ? 20:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem with providing detailed information about what to do is that there are no guidelines and no policies on Wikiversity regarding this. All I'm doing is categorizing the images, and letting users know that there might be a problem. I really can't be specific because I don't know what will happen to them, or what needs to be done to fix it. I have my thoughts, which were poorly received the last time I tried this task, so I removed the specifics which were previously objectionable. If you want me to go back modify the message, I can. I tried to be as generic as possible, but apparently whether I'm specific or vague, it's a problem either way. If you want to change the wording, User:Mike's bot account/Modified message is the place to show me what you want it to say.
@Sebmol: the problem is not with using stale TS data. (Also, replag is ~20h, not 15 days; my bad there) The data is fine as long as there weren't an unacceptably high ratio of false positives, which I have yet to see. You'll also notice that I did go through by hand and fix plain text permissions in clear-cut cases (2 diffs above, but there are others). I did multiple checks of category intersections plus manual filtering, so I think false positives, if any, are within an acceptable proportion (and are likely to be zero). – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"to Foundation policy, uploads are required to have a license template and source" <-- I'm not sure that this is the best way to describe the situation. In general, I agree that Wikiversity needs to develop a process that helps us efficiently obtain information about the source and licensing status of uploaded files. I like the idea of trying to have a licensing template on every file upload page. I would prefer a process by which uploading is impossible unless a licensing template is selected and one of the choices could be "None of the above". I think we need a Wikiversity policy that describes what the correct course of action is when there is no licensing template on a file upload page. The list of templates at Wikiversity:License tags is not complete. I think it is the case that nobody has put the required time and effort into dealing with this problem, but that does not mean we should adopt any available "solution". I do not find it acceptable to delete or threaten to delete files that we do not have the time to look at and discuss. In other words, I do not accept the Wikipedia approach of letting people upload files without a licensing template just so that we can later delete those files without discussion. I do not want Wikiversity to adopt the approach of putting threatening warning templates on user pages as an alternative to explaining how to license files and providing users with the tools they need to make sure they provide required information about their files. In the case of files from JWSchmidt, none of the licensing template choices seemed correct but I think these files are suitable for Wikiversity. I think these provide examples that illustrate the fact that we need a process that works with people rather than a process that drops threats on people. --JWS 14:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Acutally, the Foundation policy does require that, and cannot be "circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects." Nevertheless, this is a wiki, so be bold and fix it if you have a better way of explaining that this is required.I would have quoted local policy, but I don't think there currently is one.
If there are missing license templates, then they need to be created. If your upload process isn't suitable for Wikiversity then fix it. As I've said before, I don't consider myself to be a member of this community, and don't feel "qualified" to offer advice on how you should change that process.
I can't fix every problem on Wikiversity, and I can't even fix this images problem. All I offered to do was categorize or tag your untagged images and notify the uploaders, which I did. The rest is up to the community. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Templates are a tool that can be used to help manage uploaded files. Wikiversity is not required to use templates for this purpose and we certainly are not required by Foundation policy to use a bot to issue threats to our participants when they do not use a template. Wikiversity does not have to use the "Wikipedia approach" to dealing with file uploads. I have no objection to using a bot to flag uploaded file pages that have no template, but any message placed by such a bot on user pages needs to be helpful for Wikiversity participants, not a device for issuing threats that do not represent Wikiversity policy. In my view, User:Mike.lifeguard holds a distorted view of Foundation policy (arising from practices used at other wikis) and has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of interest in adapting his bot for use at Wikiversity. I've tried to explained what is wrong with the bot's warning message and User:Mike.lifeguard has indicated no interest in correcting the problems with the bot. Under these conditions, I think the bot needs to remain blocked. --JWS 15:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand where you're coming from, but this really irks me. I am not from Wikipedia; please stop saying that (and you might also stop using it as a four-letter word, though I generally agree with the sentiment). In fact, I dislike their methods in this area as much as you do; what I've done is nothing like what WP does. Furthermore, you most certainly did not explain any problems to me before blocking the account, which is just common decency. The task was done, so the block was clearly not preventative.
Contrary to posts elsewhere, I will not be reinstating this or related image tasks (even by request). I refuse to get pulled in every direction over such a straightforward maintenance task. The bot is still available by request for the tasks listed on it's page, but I will not do any other tasks, and will not run the bot of my own initiative here ever again. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot work

I'm unblocking the bot (and thanks again for all the help with the bloom clock stuff!), but as I mentioned on your WB page, I think you should try to discuss other bot runs with either the WV staff or people involved in particular projects.

For image licensing problems in particular, it's probably better to go through those without the use of an automated script... after all there aren't so many of them that it can't be done manually. While it's certainly true that some of the uploaders should very well know better than to upload without a license and source, it never hurts to be diplomatic! --SB_Johnny | talk 13:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You'll note, I'm sure, that I did go through them manually. I have an exam right today, but I'll do it over the weekend. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, good luck on the exam :). I'll be around tomorrow on and off, perhaps this evening as well. BTW, there's a rather larger bot job on Wikibooks as well... I'll try to come up with the instructions sometime today. --SB_Johnny | talk 15:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Since this is a multi-use bot, I removed the duty of placing uploaded file warning templates on user pages from the list of tasks for the bot. I propose that the community decide on a policy for how to deal with uploaded images. That policy needs to specify what automated message(s) can be left on user talk pages. Once we have such a policy then the bot can return to the task of leaving those messages on user pages. --JWS 15:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fair enough. I think the best approach will be to simply use the {{nld}} and related templates that have been developed on commons. --SB_Johnny | talk 15:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried to make a place for discussion of this "policy on how to deal with uploaded images" at Policy for uploaded files that lack the needed source/copyright/licensing information.
[double e/c]
@JWS: Well, there aren't currently any left, which is why I don't understand how the block is preventative. There's nothing more to do on that task.
I agree. I'm also very puzzled why JWS said (above) that the block should stay in force. When did blocking become preferable to discussion? --SB_Johnny | talk 21:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Johnny: I can replace the category with the template whenever WV decides that what they want. That's what I've been advocating all along. Those templates (and the process they serve) have worked well on Commons, Wikibooks, and probably just about every other active wiki. Of course, the language will need to be modified for use here, as will the policy. I suspect that a week won't be long enough here, so perhaps increase it to a month. As well, you'll want to provide WV-specific instructions, or link to them. The bot is here to serve, so just ask when/if any of those tasks need doing. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
see above – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "When did blocking become preferable to discussion?" <-- When a bot is causing disruption and doing something that its has not been approved to do, a block is called for. When I blocked the bot I reasonably assumed that it could at any time be used to add more of the un-approved and offensive template messages to user talk pages. When the person who controls the bot displays, via discussion, no concern the problem with the bot, then the block should continue. We could also ask, since when is removing a block without discussion the preferable course of action? --JWS 14:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please block the bot that is adding incorrect categories to the illustrations of my students. All images are public domain and this is not in dispute. Robert Elliott 18:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

bot results

Yup. There were a couple minor problems (missing breaks after headers and extra brackets on the first 2 lines), but other than that it's right on. Thanks! --SB_Johnny | talk 21:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry 'bout that. I though I had checked for that kind of thing thoroughly. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please use the PD1 template, not PD...

Please do not use the PD template for illustrations used at the Wikiversity Film School which were submitted into the public domain by the students.

Not accurate:
PD-icon.svg This file was released into the public domain by the copyright holder, its copyright has expired, or it is ineligible for copyright. This applies worldwide.

Content released into the public domain may be used for any purpose without attribution, including commercial activities and creation of derivative works.

More accurate:
PD-icon.svg This file has been released into the public domain by the original author who is also the copyright holder. This applies worldwide. Content released into the public domain may be used for any purpose without attribution, including commercial activities and creation of derivative works.

Instead, if you must modify the existing illustration description, please use the PD1 template rather than the PD template to make it clear that illustration was placed in the public domain by its author and current copyright holder.

The PD template is less accurate than the original description that was used. Adding vagueness to a description which was already clear will eventually lead to confusion and mistakes. The PD1 template corrects this vagueness. ~~~~ Robert Elliott 18:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]