User talk:Multichill

Always busy.

Bahasa Indonesia ∙ dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ euskara ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ Simple English ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ ქართული ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Welcome to my talk page. Use it; don't send me e-mail. I reply to messages left on my talk, on my talk page. If I left a message on your talk page, I will reply there (unless you specify otherwise).

File:Hdipark.jpg[edit]

File:Hdipark.jpg 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 file, 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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ eesti ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ français ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ English ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot running[edit]

Please run a bot wich will add structured data about copyright to all files which I recently imported to Commons. Michalg95 (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My bot and the other bots run 24/7 so these will be picked up at some point (if that didn't already happen). Multichill (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WLM[edit]

Hi Multichill! Long time ago I was active in WLM and I know there were tools where we could see monuments on maps. Today someone asked me if there was something like https://map-of-monuments.toolforge.org/?fbclid=IwAR0nGkkWn7YF6Z1_beD8O_EQq4pqgUv309JYDsdMVyzOWi0yGDrF7fVJgj0 we could use in Denmark. I looked at Commons:Monuments database to see what tools there are but did not find any. Do you know where I should look? --MGA73 (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MGA73: https://maps.wikilovesmonuments.org/map?c=55.6844:12.3847:13 ? Multichill (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. Sadly it does not work very well for me. There are no info about the monuments and I can't jump to wiki article to see info there either. --MGA73 (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MGA73: I see items in Denmark pulling in the data, but not displaying it like for example https://maps.wikilovesmonuments.org/object/1545193 . https://github.com/hatnote/monumental-wlm doesn't look very promising. Not sure what to use these days. Multichill (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That monument/object looks very good. Well not a big deal :-) Thank you! --MGA73 (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! There's Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2022/Tools and, though I think not yet complete, I've started Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments/Documentation/Monuments lists and Wikidata last week. Would that be of help?

Ciell (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RCE-foutjes[edit]

Hallo Multichill, houd jij je nog steeds bezig met de rijksmonumenten? Ik ontdekte een fout die de wijten is aan de RCE (zie File talk:Topgevel van toren, westzijde - Midwolda - 20158975 - RCE.jpg. Dat vergt de nodige aanpassingen op de betreffende pagina's (naam van het bestand, locatie van het object, link naar het juiste rijksmonument). Zou dat op een of andere manier automatisch kunnen? Het lijkt me ook wel zinvol om de RCE in te lichten. Bestaat daar een procedure voor? Ik kan de betreffende afbeeldingen op hun site nergens vinden. Groeten, Fransvannes (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:CAPres-1924.png[edit]

File:CAPres-1924.png 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 file, 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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ eesti ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ français ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ English ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

TylerKutschbach (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

COM:AN/U[edit]

বাংলা ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Guido den Broeder. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

--SHB2000 (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories & Structured Data[edit]

Re this comment - As many of us have been working on improving categories for 18 or so years, are you suggesting I stop? Are there plans for "structured data" to eventually incorporate information currently included in categories? When will structured data "go live" in allowing editing on individual pages, and allowing creation of new subdata (like sections or streets of cities, rather than just the city name)? Pardon, yes I try adding when I can and have looked at the overview page, but that suggests it would already be here by 2019, and I'm still unable to edit or add when editing image pages. Pointers, please? Thanks! Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Infrogmation: no, please keep improving. Structured data better than categories is still a very distant point in the future. Development seems to have come to a grinding halt so that point doesn't seem to be coming any closer. Multichill (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the reply. Best wishes, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VRT[edit]

Hoi Multichill, dank je wel voor dit. Op VRT vragen we altijd naar de expliciete licentie als iemand met iets vaags komt. Meestal komt de juiste toestemming dan wel. Soms niet, dan heeft iemand bezwaar tegen commerciële toepassingen die mogelijk zijn met CCBYSA. Daar zijn makers vrij in uiteraard. Met vriendelijke groet (en eind goed al goed voor die foto), Ellywa (talk) 06:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hierbij wens ik jullie beide nog te bedanken voor de voorspoedige afhandeling na de moeizame start. Zelf heb ik hieromtrent een ambivalent gevoel gehouden want de opening was goed gesignaleerd, maar ongelukkig geformuleerd. Als we hier wat meer rekening mee houden, dan kan het op het sociale vlak wellicht ook beter komen. Mvg, Mdd (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bedankt voor het regelen Elly. Het was dus uiteindelijk gewoon license laundering want Christine van Rooijen is de houder van het auteursrecht. Best knap dat je nog een vrijgave hebt kunnen regelen. Multichill (talk) 12:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hier zie je een voorbeeld van wat een castingbureau zegt bij zo'n shoot (een andere, want DCA houdt momenteel geen fotosessies). Rechtenvrij gebruik voor het talent. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hoi Multichill, in het betreffende verwijderverzoek kun je lezen, dat ik de nodige moeite heb gedaan om die vrijgave te bewerkstelligen, en om daarvoor dan Elly te bedanken gaat mij te ver. Bij elkaar ben ik daar enige dagen mee bezig geweest om te orienteren en te overleggen. Ik schat dat dat zeker een halve dag gekost heeft, en alleen al heb ik zo'n drie keer langere gesprekken gehad met de fotograve. Bij elkaar heb ik wel een uur met haar gesproken en heb ik haar redelijk doorgevraagd over de gang van zaken, en visa versa.

Wat dat Licence Laundering betreft kan ik je geruststellen. In het voorschrift op COM:LL staat dat dit gaat om "the process of using a mechanism to remove an undesired trait" maar van zoiets was geen sprake. Het was duidelijk, zoals ik reeds heb gerapporteerd, dat bij de fotoshoot de foto's waren geleverd met een vrij gebruiksrecht. De personen waren vrij om dit werk te gebruiken ter verdere promotie. Een CC vrijgave van dit werk zou daar ook onder kunnen vallen, misschien zelfs een commerciële vrijgave, want dit kan bijdragen aan naamsbekendheid, etc.

Nu is me ook duidelijk geworden, dat de fotograve, en voor zover ik weet ook het casting bureau, zo'n soort situatie nog niet eerder meegemaakt hadden. Of dat heb ik in ieder geval begrepen. Zoals eerder gerapporteerd, heeft de fotograve wel navraag gedaan over bij wie het copyright ligt bij zo'n fotoshoot; bij de fotograaf of het agentschap. Over de commerciële vrijgave via een CC-licentie na het verstrekken van foto's met een vrij gebruik, is niet verder navraag gedaan. Dit is dus vooralsnog onbepaald. Wat dit betreft heeft GdB ook openheid van zaken gegeven, en zijn verwachtingspatroon weergegeven. Hij was wellicht te positief in z'n verklaring over copyrightbezit, maar die vrijgave is voor zover ik kan overzien toch rechtmatig gebeurd. Hopelijk heb ik je hiermee voldoende geïnformeerd. Mvg, Mdd (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ter verdere overweging geef ik mee dat als zoals hier de opdrachtgever een aantal foto's van zulke dagen op de eigen website zet zonder vermelding van de fotografe, verondersteld wordt dat de rechten bij de opdrachtgever berusten, tenzij in het contract iets anders staat (de 'bewijslast' is dan omgekeerd). En als, zoals in dit geval, de opdrachtgever vervolgens alle 100+ originelen naar het talent stuurt en ze niet (allemaal) zelf bewaart, mag je aannemen dat de rechten zijn overgedragen aan het talent. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interessante details, waar ik echter de nodige bedenkingen tegenover wil plaatsen: De eerste veronderstelling (dat je aan de publicatie op de eigen website van de opdrachtgever zonder naamsvermelding rechten kan ontlenen), wordt volgens mij tegengesproken in de auteurswet (o.a. artikel 2 en (?)) die vastlegt dat auteursrecht pas wordt overgedragen als dat echt schriftelijk is vastgelegd. Er is me ook uitgelegd, dat dit veelal in de leveringsvoorwaarden van de fotograaf is vastgelegd, dan wel in de algemene leveringsvoorwaarden van de beroepsvereniging, waarin in het contract wordt verwezen. Daarbij is een formulering als voor zover niet voorzien gelden de voorwaarden van de beroepsvereniging.

Ook is het zo, dat als Guido deze foto zelf op Wikipedia had geupload, dat dit niet geaccepteerd zou worden. Dat is ook in mijn terugplaatstverzoek afgelopen week weer ter sprake gekomen, zie hier, waar het was verwoord als " Our rules require that the actual photographer send a free license using VRT..." Mijn verzoek was overigens een uitzondering op deze regel.

Bij het oorspronkelijke verwijderverzoek door Multichill, zie nog eens hier, was dat ook gesteld met het gezegde ...copyright was transfered to User:Guido den Broeder. This should be documented in Commons:VRTS. Maar deze vlieger gaat NIET op, want de afbeelding was niet door Guido hier rechtstreeks geupload, maar door mij geïmporteerd van een externe bron. Multichill heeft wel goed gesignaleerd dat er een discrepantie zit in de data bij de upload van Wikisage. Maar dat is feitelijk een probleem van Wikisage, en dat had hij daar mogen aankaarten. Zoals hij dat nu gedaan heeft, heeft hij interne vraagstukken van Wikisage hier zitten importeren, en dat heeft de zaken behoorlijk gecompliceerd... Ma ja, hierdoor is de zaak wel aan het rollen gebracht, en is er nu voor het bestand een heldere toestemming. De wijze waarop dit echter is verlopen, zou ik echter niet graag nog eens herhalen.

Maar er speelt nog meer, en daarover is momenteel een discussie op de Nederlandse Wikipedia in het Auteursrechtencafe. Niet alleen Multichill maar meer Wikipedianen verwachten, dat andere organisaties net zo transparant zijn als Wikipedia en alle gegevens maar bij voorbaat publiceren. Als dat niet klopt, menen ze al te kunnen opmerken dat er copyright geschonden wordt... en dan wordt het nog een veel grotere gecompliceerde bende.

Wat ook speelt maar niet ter sprake is gekomen is, of ik met de upload van de foto van Guido al dan niet aan het en:w:Precautionary principle heb voldaan. Dat ben ik in ieder geval voor mezelf wel nagegaan. Nu loopt deze discussie nog op het Nederlandse Auteursrechtencafe, waar ik nog meer haken en ogen naar voren wil brengen. Samengevat is mijn stellingname dus als volgt: Wat betreft die overwegingen, die Guido hier maakt, die kunnen van belang zijn als je de zaken op Wikisage zelf wil betwisten. Dat legt hier volgens mij dus geen gewicht in de schaal... maar het blijft wel interessant. -- Mdd (talk)-

In artikel 2 lid 3 van de Auteurswet is sprake van een akte. Er staat niet dat dit een schriftelijke akte moet zijn. Natuurlijk zou het beter zijn als zo'n agentschap alle vragen voor is door het een en ander helder vast te leggen. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Om mij onbekende redenen heb je besloten om in het geheel niet te reageren, waarmee de zaken in m'n ogen "in de lucht blijven hangen" in de plaats van ze behoorlijk uit te spreken. Nu is dit in m'n ogen deel van een groter geheel dat bepaalde gebruikers zeg maar "belaagd worden" en "niets gegund." Op het overleg van Guido heb ik deze discussie voortgezet, waar ik nu hieromtrent een verdere vergelijk gemaakt heb tussen de representatie op Wikimedia Commons van de directe betrokkenen. Dit ter kennisgeving, mvg. -- Mdd (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Andere dingen aan mijn hoofd. Die lappen tekst van jullie heb ik ter kennisgeving aangenomen. Multichill (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit by your bot BotMultichill[edit]

Hello Multichill,
I have nominated File:Union Jack at the Eureka Stockade.jpg for deletion, because it is an apparent copyright violation (NOT by you, I want to add). Prior to this, one of your bots was the last editor of the file page ([1], edit summary "Adding structured data: copyright"). Given that a copyright violation is the reason for the deletion request, I'd like to ask if you have any input. Renerpho (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's just a bot syncing thousands of files. Copyright on this file Looks fishy indeed. Multichill (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Verovering van Gallie.jpg[edit]

File:Verovering van Gallie.jpg 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 file, 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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ eesti ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ français ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ English ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Carnby (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Verovering Gallie door de Franken v2.gif[edit]

File:Verovering Gallie door de Franken v2.gif 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 file, 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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ eesti ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ français ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ English ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Carnby (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Verovering Gallie door de Franken.gif[edit]

File:Verovering Gallie door de Franken.gif 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 file, 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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ eesti ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ français ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ English ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Carnby (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

at wikidata, the property for Categories[edit]

I noticed that your bot was adding the property for cats to entities at wikidata. I stopped adding them due to a thing about the Header template at wikisource. The header template works pretty well in that it will reach out for many interwiki links. If the category is linked at the wikilinks, it will display that, then, if there is a main subject and the main subject has a category, it will add that as a "gallery" link. So, I started not adding the property for categories to book entity. But I like it for the scan entity, as that is where the scan should reside and it cannot go also into the interwiki links.

It doesn't matter much for little known works of fiction, but for the non-fiction, it is pretty cool. A book about sailing can link to the "Category" which is all of its own images and the "Gallery" will link to the Category which is about all Sailing.

I will see if I can find/remember an example of this.

Also, I always love seeing your bot working; even if I know more than it does occasionally....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Property P373

I glanced at d:Property:P373 yesterday, and perhaps I was seeing what I wanted to see.... It is going to be the way that categories can :lg:Category:! When I was doing plants here, I was so glad that it was using a cosmic language and, even though I speak english, I got a sick feeling when I saw how predominately english the cats are here. Really, Spanish is the most "native" language in this world (I think). I have been working with books lately, which are surprisingly similar to plants. Plants have an "auth", the first publication of a description or collection of a specimen. Books have a first publication, maybe book, maybe in a magazine and there is always at least one first publisher.

Category:Mother Goose <--so messy! I moved the publications all to Category:Contes de ma Mère l’Oye because Perrault was the first to get them into print. Similar is Category:Grimm's Fairy Tales in which the first publication is Kinder und Hausmärchen but there are like 5 or 6 of those, spread over the 1800s and each new pub might have new tales or not all of the original in it. Aesop is the worst! There is a trend, every once in a while, to write an Aesop fable. A snarky little ditty to anonymously make a point to someone who is perhaps powerful and dangerous. Several known authors published Aesop fables and who knows who wrote them. And to make it even worse, the first publication of some of these Greek fables was in Latin (in the 1100s!).

I thought of making the title of books only appear here in the language it was published in. So, the Rackham Peter Pan: Category:Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens (1912, Hodder & Stoughton) and the Polish Category:Przygody Piotrusia Pana (1914) (which use the same images with the exception of the publishers bauble) -- categories about specific publications should just stay that way and not exchange languages according to the users settings. And how to do this at wikidata? I was thinking that p373 or lack of that might work. How to let the bot know not to add that to a specific language title? Maybe publication date, but that is really fragile of a flag, and often wrong and often not added because it isn't known.

en.gutenbergpedia

This Peter Pan is such a good example of the challenge of publication dates, as it is somewhat famous in USA (though, not to en.wikipedia) for an example of copyright. Maybe it has changed, but when I looked at wikipedia, they claimed that the Rackham Peter Pan book (from England)) was the first, and for a long while after the Mickey Mouse law, it was not in the public domain. Then, it was discovered to have been published first in an USA magazine Category:Scribner's Magazine/Volume 32 The Little White Bird 1902, and well within the PD-US-expired rules!!

There is a problem at wikipedia, or rather, en.gutenbergpedia and here, in which the books and magazines and movies have become separate from each other and from the author and at the end of a long, long branch are a bunch of small and "uncommons-like" (500x300)px images that were probably a bot upload from gutenberg. What makes those long branches a tragedy is that rule where the cat cannot be in both J. M Barrie, and Books by J. M. Barrie. The Peter Pan information here is incredibly broken as an information carrying tree.

When possible, I put those Illustrations by categories onto the wikidata entity I make for the gutenberg version, which I am removing from the "literary work" entity (which links to the wikipedias). It is so easy to get gutenberg installed in all of the wrong places, and it is really easy to get to the gutenberg books from the wiki articles. It is easier lately to get to wikisource from wikipedia, but some of the "Wikidata Publication Project" rules need to be broken to get that link to work. And, I like gutenberg, I have at least one book there and several illustrations, etc. But really, it is like abusing your child and spoiling the neighbor child and not good for either child. So if you could make a warning toggle for any gutenberg book id that is not on a version page (at wikidata) it would be a good step in the right direction of not spoiling or abusing any child.

So two things in this long text: 1) When and how to maybe keep the category in the original language and 2) messy publication trees and gutenberg, here, at the pedias and at data.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Change of profile picture[edit]

Hello can you pls change the profile picture for Jamie Malonzo (PBA athlete). Pls upload a new one as per his request. Thx Nae3003 (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Rex Whistler (1905-1944) - Lady Caroline Paget (1913–1976), Later Lady Duff - 1176330 - National Trust.jpg[edit]

Hi. Last year we identified that BotMultichill had uploaded File:Rex Whistler (1905-1944) - Lady Caroline Paget (1913–1976), Later Lady Duff - 1176330 - National Trust.jpg incorrectly due to some mixed up data at the National Trust. The discussion resulted in the file being deleted. This year your bot restored the file from the same source according to the log.[2] I assume that the file needs to be deleted again but is there some check you can place on your bot script to prevent reupload? From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Rex Whistler (1905-1944) - Lady Caroline Paget (1913–1976), Later Lady Duff - 1176331 - National Trust.jpg is a similar recreation. The licence has inserted the claim that the author died in 1720 (instead of 1944) due to the mixed up data. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@From Hill To Shore: thanks for pointing this out! I thought I had fixed this, but looks like I made a mistake. I think I fixed it now and running the bot now to confirm this. If it's fixed it won't touch A Village Street with a Performing Bear (Q52255990) and Figure, Animals and Wagons crossing a Stream (Q52256007). Multichill (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archive Commons:Flickr batch uploading as dead[edit]

You are listed as participant at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Flickr_batch_uploading#Participants - so I wanted to notify you about https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Archive_Commons%3AFlickr_batch_uploading_as_dead where I propose to archive this page as dead, with last upload done in 2015. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mateusz Konieczny: thanks for the notification. Go ahead and bury it.

I think nothing has been picked up from Commons:Batch uploading for years so maybe that page should get a big warning too. Multichill (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Batch_uploading/Past_batch_uploads record some minimal activity Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Message from Solman9[edit]

@Multichill

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Piritual_meditations_K.jpg

Colleague and manager: the copyrighted document was sent to the Mail of: permissions@wikimedia.org Wikipedia, please stop deleting until you are notified about copyright. Solman9 (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm just another user and you are a user who is looking at getting blocked soon for making a mess here just like on Wikidata. Multichill (talk) 09:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Broen, Johannes / Joannes[edit]

Hoi Multichill, op wikidata zijn twee items ~de Broen J. Namelijk Johannes en Joannes . Ondanks dat ze volgens aangegeven bronnen tien jaar verschil in geboortedatum hebben vermoed ik sterk dat het om dezelfde kunstenaar gaat vanwege gelijk sterfjaar en slechts een J de Broen bekend bij RKD. Kunnen deze twee items samengevoegd worden met respect voor beide varianten van geboorte data? Of welke is het meest betrouwbaar? En hoe doe je dat het beste? Bedankt. Opm. Toch spreekt ook het RMA over Johannes de Broen (I) alsof er wel twee zouden zijn. Peli (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peli welke items bedoel je precies? Multichill (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joannes De Broen (Q109833242) en Johannes de Broen (Q95347357) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelikana (talk • contribs) 21:13, 18 October 2022‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peli ik denk dat bij Joannes De Broen (Q109833242) de geboortedatum van zijn broer Gerrit de Broen (Q18701443): Dutch engraver (1659-1740) per ongeluk is gebruikt en dat Johannes de Broen (Q95347357): Dutch engraver (1649-1730) wel klopt.

Kan geen goede bron vinden om samen te voegen dus voorlopig maar even gekoppeld via said to be the same as (P460). Multichill (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hoi Multichill, wil je even assisteren met een creator-template voor Carl_Friedrich_Reimer. Er ontbreekt nog een element, volgens de alert op de pagina. Bedankt Peli (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FRAUDULENT CHANGING OF LICENSE[edit]

I hoped this had been taken care of years ago, but a search for my user name + migrated has turned up a number of images with FALSE LICENSE CLAIMS ADDED which are VERY EXPLICITLY AGAINST WHAT I STATED CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY. Can a bot belatedly "fix" the violations of my author rights? Eg [3] for File:Chalmette29May06HouseDebrisRoofDrainCanal2.jpg. I notice other bots have done similar vandalism, eg [4]. Or will I have to fight this one image at a time for the rest of my life? Distressed, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

great work on structured data in wikimedia[edit]

—Preceding unsigned comment was added by 186.65.36.14 (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		great work on structured data in wikimedia

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ eesti ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ français ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ English ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Ouzo 2ltr.jpeg

Yours sincerely, Xunks (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mesdag / Utrecht[edit]

Hi Multichill, bij circa 63 foto's van het panorama mesdag gebouw staan verkeerde bestandsnamen, ~~foutieve adresbeschrijvingen en ook verkeerde cats~~. Ze betreffen alle zo te zien het wel het panorama Mesdag in Den Haag en hebben dus niets met Utrecht te maken. Hoop van dienst te zijn, hoop dat het opgelost kan worden, groet. Peli (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC) Het komt neer op een hernoeming van ca. 50 bestanden waarbij de connotatie Utrecht moet worden vervangen door Den Haag. ~~En dan hercategorisatie. En descr. nakijken.~~ Er zijn wat meer ondercats voor dit museum nu. Meeste is aangepast nu, behalve de hernoeming van de bestanden. Kun je dat effeciënt doen? Bedankt. Peli (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dat wordt gewoon met het handje. Ik loop het wel na. Multichill (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tag Bot SDC edits[edit]

Hi Multichill, I've been asked (Commons:Village_pump#SchlurcherBot) to tag my bot's SDC edits, so they can be easier identified (and filtered out if needed). I've looked into Special:Tags and apparently any admin can generate new tags and technically the tag can be added as a parameter to the wbeditentitiy post-request quite easily. I've tried tags=ACDC succesfully. Overall I am willing to implement this. It would be great, if your bot uses the same tag. So a couple of questions:

Would you agree that a tag is appropriate?
Would you use the same tag for your bot's edits?
If 1. and 2., would you please generate a tag and let me know the code. My suggestion would be something along the lines Tag short name/code: BotSDC (for Api Use) Tag description: Automated SDC edit (with link to the SDC page, an even shorter description would be better).

Best regards, -- Schlurcher (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Schlurcher: Sounds like a plan. Added it to Special:Tags and created MediaWiki:Tag-BotSDC & MediaWiki:Tag-BotSDC-description. Let me know how testing is going. Multichill (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perfect. Thanks. I've updated my script, only an additional tags=BotSDC needed. --Schlurcher (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done I did the same. Multichill (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Multichill: Can you please change MediaWiki:Tag-BotSDC and MediaWiki:Tag-BotSDC-description to use Special:MyLanguage so it links to the translations --Nintendofan885^{T&Cs apply} 17:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nintendofan885:

Done. Multichill (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did something change with BotMultichillT?[edit]

Hi, I've noticed in the last few days that BotMultichillT isn't visiting my photos as much to add SDC to them - particularly newly uploaded photos, which it used to find quite regularly within 24 hours of them being uploaded. For example, it has yet to find File:Alcazaba de Almería 2022 060.jpg - it has visited File:Alcazaba de Almería 2022 061.jpg, except it only added copyright rather than the rest of the usual data. Not a critical issue, but I thought I'd give a heads-up in case something had gone wrong. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The tracker category Category:Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 missing SDC copyright license seems to be missing since this change so the bot wasn't picking up the files. I undid it for now and reported at Module talk:SDC tracking.

Code for the bot didn't change for a while, just self missing so it doesn't get picked up as own work. Multichill (talk) 10:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for finding the problem! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot adding same statement three times in one day[edit]

Look at the history of File:The Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh with the Infosys awardees, at the Infosys awards 2010 presentation ceremony, in Mumbai on January 06, 2011.jpg. There were the same statements added three times. If this happened to more files it should be cleaned up by the bot. Mirer (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sint in spanje.jpg[edit]

File:Sint in spanje.jpg 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 file, 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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ eesti ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ français ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ English ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

213.162.6.130 10:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:US Navy 101207-N-8335D-911 Boatswain's Mate Seaman Josh Hiner directs a Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force SH-60K Sea Hawk helicopter.jpg[edit]

File:US Navy 101207-N-8335D-911 Boatswain's Mate Seaman Josh Hiner directs a Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force SH-60K Sea Hawk helicopter.jpg 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 file, 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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ eesti ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ français ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ English ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

HPS911 (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File tagging File:Luc Schuiten, Habitarble canal - 222976 - onroerenderfgoed.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Luc Schuiten, Habitarble canal - 222976 - onroerenderfgoed.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Luc Schuiten, Habitarble canal - 222976 - onroerenderfgoed.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User talk:Multichill

Contents

File:Hdipark.jpg[edit]

Bot running[edit]

WLM[edit]

RCE-foutjes[edit]

File:CAPres-1924.png[edit]

COM:AN/U[edit]

Categories & Structured Data[edit]

VRT[edit]

Edit by your bot BotMultichill[edit]

File:Verovering van Gallie.jpg[edit]

File:Verovering Gallie door de Franken v2.gif[edit]

File:Verovering Gallie door de Franken.gif[edit]

at wikidata, the property for Categories[edit]

Change of profile picture[edit]

File:Rex Whistler (1905-1944) - Lady Caroline Paget (1913–1976), Later Lady Duff - 1176330 - National Trust.jpg[edit]

Archive Commons:Flickr batch uploading as dead[edit]

Message from Solman9[edit]

De Broen, Johannes / Joannes[edit]

FRAUDULENT CHANGING OF LICENSE[edit]

great work on structured data in wikimedia[edit]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Mesdag / Utrecht[edit]

Tag Bot SDC edits[edit]

Did something change with BotMultichillT?[edit]

Bot adding same statement three times in one day[edit]

File:Sint in spanje.jpg[edit]

File:US Navy 101207-N-8335D-911 Boatswain's Mate Seaman Josh Hiner directs a Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force SH-60K Sea Hawk helicopter.jpg[edit]

File tagging File:Luc Schuiten, Habitarble canal - 222976 - onroerenderfgoed.jpg[edit]

Navigation menu