When I just read about admins getting scolded for deleting an image that was long past its "due date", I thought about the nature of the templates and the message they convey.
Currently, they say something like "this image needs more source info" etc., and give the date the template was added. If nothing changes, the image *may* be deleted after, what, a month? This would be the equivalent of "best before" - in reality, it might last a lot longer than that.
What if the attitude of the templates were changed? "This image lacks this and that. It will be deleted on XXXX-YY-ZZ unless this information is provided." My tool [2] can be used to find images that have reached their final use-by date, and could be deleted with good reason.
Theoretically, one could write a bot which could do the deletions, so no admins get scolded. The idea of a deletion-bot with admin rights (a virtual equivalent of [2];-) might sound scary, but setting it for "no edits for a month since addition of the template", combined with the image resurrection capability, should calm this.
Magnus
[1] http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/bad_old_ones.php [2] http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/samsung_develops_machine_gun_sentry_robo...
2006/11/15, Magnus Manske:
Theoretically, one could write a bot which could do the deletions, so no admins get scolded. The idea of a deletion-bot with admin rights (a virtual equivalent of [2];-) might sound scary, but setting it for "no edits for a month since addition of the template", combined with the image resurrection capability, should calm this.
If someone runs such bot, please don't delete more that, let's say, 100 images a day, otherwise CommonsTicker gets stucked :)
2006/11/15, Magnus Manske:
Theoretically, one could write a bot which could do the deletions, so no admins get scolded. The idea of a deletion-bot with admin rights (a virtual equivalent of [2];-) might sound scary, but setting it for "no edits for a month since addition of the template", combined with the image resurrection capability, should calm this.
If someone runs such bot, please don't delete more that, let's say, 100 images a day, otherwise CommonsTicker gets stucked :)
I'm not a bot, but I have deleted up to 1000 images per day :)
But seriously, when I've been in a deleting mood, I have also spared tagged images. There are at least three kind of good images amongst tagged images: 1. Vandalism tagging (rare) 2. Ineligible (chemical formulas, PD-art) 3. Images where information has been provided after tagging for deletion. This is the most common group.
These are also reasons why a bot wouldn't be an extremely good idea. Although considering that the time wasted on deleting could be spent better, I'm not totally against a "monster bot", either.
I'd appreciate some sort of a mechanism (maybe java backup) that will allow me to better check the images.
It takes too much time to process every individual entry with the detail I'd like to put it. And after the 1000th delete it starts to get annoying to manually check history of the image, contributions of the tagger/uploader and etc.
We need a bot to at the very least warn the uploaders if they weren't warned. I wouldn't however want a bot that starts deleting things. No matter how hard a bot is written, it is possible to trick a bot into doing destructive stuff.
Having said that we absolutely need a delinking bot. If the delinker gets blocked in local wikis they cease to become our problem. If wikis are going to use our content they definitely need to be cooperative. If we have a commons delinker working, the ticker probably wouldn't have to report deleted images though it would report the tagging.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One nice thing to do is perhaps to break the deletion processes such as {{no license}}, {{no source}}. {{pd-art}}, {{pd-old}} images tagged with {{no source}} should be a separate process.
I really want better deletion tools as I am required to do a thousand deletions per day to keep up with backlog (as it is now). It is theoretically impossible for us to deal with the commons backlog at the rate of increasing backlog versus the rate of successfully admin candidates. Commons backlog is actualy already out of control.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As it stands it is clear that commons is a failing system. We should really have more tools here on commons at our disposal. It should take me two clicks to review and delete an image.
Needless to say the nonsense leaking to us from es.wiki is creating additional problems.
On 11/15/06, samuli@samulilintula.net samuli@samulilintula.net wrote:
2006/11/15, Magnus Manske:
Theoretically, one could write a bot which could do the deletions, so no admins get scolded. The idea of a deletion-bot with admin rights (a virtual equivalent of [2];-) might sound scary, but setting it for "no edits for a month since addition of the template", combined with the image resurrection capability, should calm this.
If someone runs such bot, please don't delete more that, let's say, 100 images a day, otherwise CommonsTicker gets stucked :)
I'm not a bot, but I have deleted up to 1000 images per day :)
But seriously, when I've been in a deleting mood, I have also spared tagged images. There are at least three kind of good images amongst tagged images:
- Vandalism tagging (rare)
- Ineligible (chemical formulas, PD-art)
- Images where information has been provided after tagging for deletion.
This is the most common group.
These are also reasons why a bot wouldn't be an extremely good idea. Although considering that the time wasted on deleting could be spent better, I'm not totally against a "monster bot", either.
-- Ystävällisin terveisin, Samuli Lintula
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Cool Cat wrote:
It takes too much time to process every individual entry with the detail I'd like to put it.
Is there any way a bot could help you?
We need a bot to at the very least warn the uploaders if they weren't warned.
Doesn't en.wp have such a bot?
Having said that we absolutely need a delinking bot.
Marco is working on it ....
Regards.
Flo
On 11/22/06, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote: <snip>
I really want better deletion tools as I am required to do a thousand deletions per day to keep up with backlog (as it is now). It is theoretically impossible for us to deal with the commons backlog at the rate of increasing backlog versus the rate of successfully admin candidates. Commons backlog is actualy already out of control.
As it stands it is clear that commons is a failing system. We should really have more tools here on commons at our disposal. It should take me two clicks to review and delete an image.
I'll be pretty busy with other things (commonly refered to as "real life";-) for another week or so, but after that I'll have time to build new toys^W tools. Maybe you (that is, anyone concerned) should whip up a page with what you need. Preferably something I can do on the toolserver, as it really cuts development/bug fixing times.
Magnus
I am starting a [[Commons:Power toys]] page for prospective requests. I'd like to add that I want to avoid bureaucracy. This is just to brainstorm ideas. - Cool Cat
On 11/23/06, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
On 11/22/06, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
I really want better deletion tools as I am required to do a thousand deletions per day to keep up with backlog (as it is now). It is theoretically impossible for us to deal with the commons backlog at the
rate
of increasing backlog versus the rate of successfully admin candidates. Commons backlog is actualy already out of control.
As it stands it is clear that commons is a failing system. We should
really
have more tools here on commons at our disposal. It should take me two clicks to review and delete an image.
I'll be pretty busy with other things (commonly refered to as "real life";-) for another week or so, but after that I'll have time to build new toys^W tools. Maybe you (that is, anyone concerned) should whip up a page with what you need. Preferably something I can do on the toolserver, as it really cuts development/bug fixing times.
Magnus _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 23/11/06, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Having said that we absolutely need a delinking bot. If the delinker gets blocked in local wikis they cease to become our problem. If wikis are going to use our content they definitely need to be cooperative.
I think this is not the best attitude. (Especially since we can't stop any Wikimedia wiki using our content, so it's a kinda hollow threat.) If Commons is going to serve its primary useful purpose, it definitely needs the acceptance and cooperation of Wikimedia wikis. Alienating projects with a "if you don't like it, tough" attitude seems counterproductive.
I really want better deletion tools as I am required to do a thousand deletions per day to keep up with backlog (as it is now). It is theoretically impossible for us to deal with the commons backlog at the rate of increasing backlog versus the rate of successfully admin candidates. Commons backlog is actualy already out of control.
Nice of you to notice, it's been like that as long as I've been paying attention, too. ;)
Anyway getting Magnus on side is always a good start to any sideproject for the Commons, so I look forward to seeing what you guys can come up with.
regards, Brianna user:pfctdayelise
On 11/23/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is not the best attitude. (Especially since we can't stop any Wikimedia wiki using our content, so it's a kinda hollow threat.)
If the content becomes so unstable it becomes inposible to use people would stop useing it.
If Commons is going to serve its primary useful purpose, it definitely needs the acceptance and cooperation of Wikimedia wikis. Alienating projects with a "if you don't like it, tough" attitude seems counterproductive.
That would depend on what exactly commons wants to be. En wikipedia has ~300K free images hosted localy so in some ways commons is already not performing that function.
On 23/11/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
That would depend on what exactly commons wants to be. En wikipedia has ~300K free images hosted localy so in some ways commons is already not performing that function.
I would call that a local interface problem rather than a conscious avoidance of Commons.
I always upload free images directly to Commons, but when you click "Upload file", [[Special:Upload]] says you should "consider" uploading it to Commons. Uploading to en: is just lots easier unless you know your way around Wikimedia.
And when you click on the link to upload to Commons, it tells you you need a login there too. "What, *another* login? I'll just upload to en:, it's much easier." SUL! SUL!
By the way, Commons admins may care to compare:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload
I wonder if anyone is up to translating the harsh text of the second example into enough languages ... certainly into Spanish.
- d.
On 11/23/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/11/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
That would depend on what exactly commons wants to be. En wikipedia has ~300K free images hosted localy so in some ways commons is already not performing that function.
I would call that a local interface problem rather than a conscious avoidance of Commons.
I always upload free images directly to Commons, but when you click "Upload file", [[Special:Upload]] says you should "consider" uploading it to Commons. Uploading to en: is just lots easier unless you know your way around Wikimedia.
And when you click on the link to upload to Commons, it tells you you need a login there too. "What, *another* login? I'll just upload to en:, it's much easier." SUL! SUL!
I think commons should be somewhat grateful for this fact. It means the images from EN have been somewhat filtered.
By the way, Commons admins may care to compare:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload
The en one has been criticised for its "angry fruit salad" look.
It also fails to include the image details template that commons seems to use as standard.
I wonder if anyone is up to translating the harsh text of the second example into enough languages ... certainly into Spanish.
Russian already exists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Uploadtext/ru
En upload also includes more licence selection traps (I should add some more at some point for invalid fair use stuff) than commons something commons might want to look into
Yo, I think we need to be a bit more persuasive about the cooperation thing. We aren't even sending angry mail when a local wiki causes a setback. Local wikis should understand that by unlinking, we are doing them a favor. We are not even required to unlink any images instead we are simply recommended in doing so. All local wikis must cut back on bureaucracy on any and all issues involving commons. We aren't able to get anything done because of the retarded amount of bureaucracy. A good example would be the delinking bots to this problem. Identifying a problem is the first step in seeking a solution. - Cool Cat
On 11/23/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/11/06, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Having said that we absolutely need a delinking bot. If the delinker
gets
blocked in local wikis they cease to become our problem. If wikis are
going
to use our content they definitely need to be cooperative.
I think this is not the best attitude. (Especially since we can't stop any Wikimedia wiki using our content, so it's a kinda hollow threat.) If Commons is going to serve its primary useful purpose, it definitely needs the acceptance and cooperation of Wikimedia wikis. Alienating projects with a "if you don't like it, tough" attitude seems counterproductive.
I really want better deletion tools as I am required to do a thousand deletions per day to keep up with backlog (as it is now). It is theoretically impossible for us to deal with the commons backlog at the
rate
of increasing backlog versus the rate of successfully admin candidates. Commons backlog is actualy already out of control.
Nice of you to notice, it's been like that as long as I've been paying attention, too. ;)
Anyway getting Magnus on side is always a good start to any sideproject for the Commons, so I look forward to seeing what you guys can come up with.
regards, Brianna user:pfctdayelise _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 11/23/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/11/06, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Having said that we absolutely need a delinking bot. If the delinker gets blocked in local wikis they cease to become our problem. If wikis are going to use our content they definitely need to be cooperative.
I think this is not the best attitude. (Especially since we can't stop any Wikimedia wiki using our content, so it's a kinda hollow threat.) If Commons is going to serve its primary useful purpose, it definitely needs the acceptance and cooperation of Wikimedia wikis. Alienating projects with a "if you don't like it, tough" attitude seems counterproductive.
However I think it is the only real solution. As a relative newcomer on wikipedia, I find the bureaucracy enormous. It seems that actually nobody wants to take the decision. I think it is time to do it.
Bryan
Good sir, I agree with you. - Cool Cat
On 11/23/06, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/23/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/11/06, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Having said that we absolutely need a delinking bot. If the delinker
gets
blocked in local wikis they cease to become our problem. If wikis are
going
to use our content they definitely need to be cooperative.
I think this is not the best attitude. (Especially since we can't stop any Wikimedia wiki using our content, so it's a kinda hollow threat.) If Commons is going to serve its primary useful purpose, it definitely needs the acceptance and cooperation of Wikimedia wikis. Alienating projects with a "if you don't like it, tough" attitude seems counterproductive.
However I think it is the only real solution. As a relative newcomer on wikipedia, I find the bureaucracy enormous. It seems that actually nobody wants to take the decision. I think it is time to do it.
Bryan _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 11/23/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway getting Magnus on side is always a good start to any sideproject for the Commons, so I look forward to seeing what you guys can come up with.
OK, I don't have time, but I couldn't resist:
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/comdel.php
should implement your first suggestion on [[Commons:Power toys]]. It doesn't perform any editing, but generates buttons that will get you to the appropriate edit page (with diff so you see what you're about to change). A public page where anyone can delete Commons images would have been a bad idea anyway ;-)
IANAAAC (I Am Not An Admin At Commons) so please tell me if it needs fixes.
Magnus
"Magnus Manske" wrote
IANAAAC (I Am Not An Admin At Commons) so please tell me if it needs fixes.
Maybe it could show the deletion request itself above the input fields?
What about a next button that switches to the next deletetion request from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests?
Awesome tool, as always!
Flo
I wrote:
"Magnus Manske" wrote
IANAAAC (I Am Not An Admin At Commons) so please tell me if it needs fixes.
Maybe it could show the deletion request itself above the input fields?
What about a next button that switches to the next deletetion request from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests?
Forget the page, just take Commons:Deletion requests/* and sort them by date :)
Regards again,
Flo
On 11/24/06, Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net wrote:
Forget the page, just take Commons:Deletion requests/* and sort them by date :)
Well, I made a compromise - give a date range (default: last 10 days) and it generates a list of images-to-be-deleted. With deletion discussion preview, keep/delete/ignore choices and reason text for each action. Will generate a (huge) list of links/edit buttons.
Happy hunting ;-)
Magnus
it does cause "edit conflict", delete works.
- Cool Cat
On 11/24/06, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
On 11/23/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway getting Magnus on side is always a good start to any sideproject for the Commons, so I look forward to seeing what you guys can come up with.
OK, I don't have time, but I couldn't resist:
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/comdel.php
should implement your first suggestion on [[Commons:Power toys]]. It doesn't perform any editing, but generates buttons that will get you to the appropriate edit page (with diff so you see what you're about to change). A public page where anyone can delete Commons images would have been a bad idea anyway ;-)
IANAAAC (I Am Not An Admin At Commons) so please tell me if it needs fixes.
Magnus _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
I'd appreciate some sort of a mechanism (maybe java backup) that will allow me to better check the images.
It takes too much time to process every individual entry with the detail I'd like to put it. And after the 1000th delete it starts to get annoying to manually check history of the image, contributions of the tagger/uploader and etc.
We need a bot to at the very least warn the uploaders if they weren't warned. I wouldn't however want a bot that starts deleting things. No matter how hard a bot is written, it is possible to trick a bot into doing destructive stuff.
On 11/15/06, samuli@samulilintula.net samuli@samulilintula.net wrote:
2006/11/15, Magnus Manske:
Theoretically, one could write a bot which could do the deletions, so no admins get scolded. The idea of a deletion-bot with admin rights (a virtual equivalent of [2];-) might sound scary, but setting it for "no edits for a month since addition of the template", combined with the image resurrection capability, should calm this.
If someone runs such bot, please don't delete more that, let's say, 100 images a day, otherwise CommonsTicker gets stucked :)
I'm not a bot, but I have deleted up to 1000 images per day :)
But seriously, when I've been in a deleting mood, I have also spared tagged images. There are at least three kind of good images amongst tagged images:
- Vandalism tagging (rare)
- Ineligible (chemical formulas, PD-art)
- Images where information has been provided after tagging for deletion.
This is the most common group.
These are also reasons why a bot wouldn't be an extremely good idea. Although considering that the time wasted on deleting could be spent better, I'm not totally against a "monster bot", either.
-- Ystävällisin terveisin, Samuli Lintula
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 15/11/06, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Theoretically, one could write a bot which could do the deletions, so no admins get scolded. The idea of a deletion-bot with admin rights (a virtual equivalent of [2];-) might sound scary, but setting it for "no edits for a month since addition of the template", combined with the image resurrection capability, should calm this.
I think the thing holding up deletion rates is the need to delink images. So we have the proposed CommonsDelinker but I'm not sure what its status is at the moment. I think it's almost ready to go (if the will is there). Orgullomoore is a pretty busy chap I think, but it would be good to have a few people trained in its use, because it is that important to Commons that we wouldn't want it to stop working if one person gets busy.
If/when CommonsDelinker is introduced, I predict the backlogs will dissipate pretty rapidly, probably a month or so.
I personally would not throw my weight behind a bot with deletion rights, but maybe community will is changing. I don't think it's changed that rapidly, though.
cheers, Brianna user:pfctdayelise
"Magnus Manske" magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 10:05 AM:
Theoretically, one could write a bot which could do the deletions, so no admins get scolded. The idea of a deletion-bot with admin rights (a virtual equivalent of [2];-) might sound scary, but setting it for "no edits for a month since addition of the template", combined with the image resurrection capability, should calm this.
I had the same idea yesterday :)
Combined with a SHORT and MULTILINGUAL message automatically posted ONCE on the talk page of the user who uploaded it and maybe even combined with email the user would be awesome. The message could say that the image was deleted because .... and that it could be restored if the uploader posts a message at ...
That bot could deleted the nld-category of today - 10 or something and we would have much less work.
If we'd even combine that bot with a delinker bot, it would be like a dream came true.
Regards,
Flo
On 11/15/06, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
When I just read about admins getting scolded for deleting an image that was long past its "due date", I thought about the nature of the templates and the message they convey.
Currently, they say something like "this image needs more source info" etc., and give the date the template was added. If nothing changes, the image *may* be deleted after, what, a month? This would be the equivalent of "best before" - in reality, it might last a lot longer than that.
What if the attitude of the templates were changed? "This image lacks this and that. It will be deleted on XXXX-YY-ZZ unless this information is provided." My tool [2] can be used to find images that have reached their final use-by date, and could be deleted with good reason.
Theoretically, one could write a bot which could do the deletions, so no admins get scolded. The idea of a deletion-bot with admin rights (a virtual equivalent of [2];-) might sound scary, but setting it for "no edits for a month since addition of the template", combined with the image resurrection capability, should calm this.
Magnus
[1] http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/bad_old_ones.php [2] http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/samsung_develops_machine_gun_sentry_robo... _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Actually, the template said "the image WILL be deleted" ... http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:PD-Soviet&oldid=...
Hi Magnus,
First let me say that I'm a big fan of the Bad Old Ones toy, and an everyday user of it.
My concern about the automated deletion of "bad old ones" is that sometimes I find that the nsd/nld templates were not well added to the image; i.e. there are no reasons to use that templates, the image can be saved with a simple edit completing the missing info, or the uploader has not been notified.
I wonder if an automated deletion based just on the existence of a template that anyone can add will delete valid pictures. Of course, deletions can be undone, but the error has to be detected, and will be difficult to know where was the image used at the time of deletion.
I think that the "burden of proof" on source and license is on the uploader, so it is valid pushing him to specify without ambiguity that data. But deleting images without at least a simple human review could not be convenient. Perhaps we can find an intermediate solution: reviewing with Bad Old Ones and when clicking "delete" on that tool having a bot delinking the image also.
Barcex
2006/11/15, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
When I just read about admins getting scolded for deleting an image that was long past its "due date", I thought about the nature of the templates and the message they convey.
Currently, they say something like "this image needs more source info" etc., and give the date the template was added. If nothing changes, the image *may* be deleted after, what, a month? This would be the equivalent of "best before" - in reality, it might last a lot longer than that.
What if the attitude of the templates were changed? "This image lacks this and that. It will be deleted on XXXX-YY-ZZ unless this information is provided." My tool [2] can be used to find images that have reached their final use-by date, and could be deleted with good reason.
Theoretically, one could write a bot which could do the deletions, so no admins get scolded. The idea of a deletion-bot with admin rights (a virtual equivalent of [2];-) might sound scary, but setting it for "no edits for a month since addition of the template", combined with the image resurrection capability, should calm this.
Magnus
[1] http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/bad_old_ones.php [2] http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/samsung_develops_machine_gun_sentry_robo... _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
I think if you made it so it deleted the image but not the image description page, would be much preferable then deleting both. For example, currently if something shows up as gone at commonsticker, its a real hunt to find out what was wrong with the image. Sometimes you get a good deletion summary, but most of the time you get something like /speedy delete/ or /against policy/. Just based on that, I have no details on what went wrong (besides that something did go wrong in the upload). if you used a bot, the situation would get worse. However if you deleted the image, and undeleted the page with a little template that says something along the lines of, the image that used to be here is gone because {{{1}}}. Info here no longer applies to anything but is still kept. That way, its much more easy for me to try to find the information for that picture needed, or fix it in sme other way. ~~~
-bawolff
On 11/15/06, Barcex lv.cabc@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Magnus,
First let me say that I'm a big fan of the Bad Old Ones toy, and an everyday user of it.
My concern about the automated deletion of "bad old ones" is that sometimes I find that the nsd/nld templates were not well added to the image; i.e. there are no reasons to use that templates, the image can be saved with a simple edit completing the missing info, or the uploader has not been notified.
I wonder if an automated deletion based just on the existence of a template that anyone can add will delete valid pictures. Of course, deletions can be undone, but the error has to be detected, and will be difficult to know where was the image used at the time of deletion.
I think that the "burden of proof" on source and license is on the uploader, so it is valid pushing him to specify without ambiguity that data. But deleting images without at least a simple human review could not be convenient. Perhaps we can find an intermediate solution: reviewing with Bad Old Ones and when clicking "delete" on that tool having a bot delinking the image also.
Barcex
2006/11/15, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
When I just read about admins getting scolded for deleting an image that was long past its "due date", I thought about the nature of the templates and the message they convey.
Currently, they say something like "this image needs more source info" etc., and give the date the template was added. If nothing changes, the image *may* be deleted after, what, a month? This would be the equivalent of "best before" - in reality, it might last a lot longer than that.
What if the attitude of the templates were changed? "This image lacks this and that. It will be deleted on XXXX-YY-ZZ unless this information is provided." My tool [2] can be used to find images that have reached their final use-by date, and could be deleted with good reason.
Theoretically, one could write a bot which could do the deletions, so no admins get scolded. The idea of a deletion-bot with admin rights (a virtual equivalent of [2];-) might sound scary, but setting it for "no edits for a month since addition of the template", combined with the image resurrection capability, should calm this.
Magnus
http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/samsung_develops_machine_gun_sentry_robo...
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
"bawolff" bawolff+wn@gmail.com wrote on Thursday, November 16, 2006 12:22 AM:
if you used a bot, the situation would get worse.
One could tell the bot to write a decent summary like "been in nld since ...."
Regards,
Flo
I believe that is not happening due to technical limitations. Currently we just subst: current day/month/year. I would like that though.
It takes longer than 7 days because there are WAY too many of them to delete and unlinking them is sometimes a serious pain (pd-soviet images are particularly cluttering the backlog)
PS (unrelated): Magnus your tool has issues with .gif images I believe. I do not know if you fixed this recently. PS (unrelated): If your tool would detect "http" (possible source) and treated such images differently it would be of great help since sometimes people forget to remove the no source template. (sometimes it is a hunt to find a url in a block of text on the tool)
On 11/15/06, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
When I just read about admins getting scolded for deleting an image that was long past its "due date", I thought about the nature of the templates and the message they convey.
Currently, they say something like "this image needs more source info" etc., and give the date the template was added. If nothing changes, the image *may* be deleted after, what, a month? This would be the equivalent of "best before" - in reality, it might last a lot longer than that.
What if the attitude of the templates were changed? "This image lacks this and that. It will be deleted on XXXX-YY-ZZ unless this information is provided." My tool [2] can be used to find images that have reached their final use-by date, and could be deleted with good reason.
Theoretically, one could write a bot which could do the deletions, so no admins get scolded. The idea of a deletion-bot with admin rights (a virtual equivalent of [2];-) might sound scary, but setting it for "no edits for a month since addition of the template", combined with the image resurrection capability, should calm this.
Magnus
[1] http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/bad_old_ones.php [2] http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/samsung_develops_machine_gun_sentry_robo... _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l