Glamtools

glamtools@lists.wikimedia.org

171 discussions

ComeOn!
by Edouard Hue 25 Jan '16

25 Jan '16

Hi there, I was notified that ComeOn! was discussed here. I'm the author :-) Thank you for your intereste in my humble tool. ComeOn! used to work with OpenJDK. I did not check lastly though, but it has no dependency on Oracle's proprietary parts of the JDK and works with Oracle's JDK 8. Java Web Start might be a pain I'm aware the most interesting part of the documentation part is missing. It was not such a problem as long as I was the only user, but times are changing. I'll do my best to write this part soon, but time is the critical resource. I'll try to send you later an exemple of how to use the feature. BR, Édouard

12 22

ComeOn! Commons batch-upload tool
by Arne Wossink 07 Jan '16

07 Jan '16

Hi all, I was wondering if anyone has ever used the ComeOn! upload tool to batch-upload images to Commons? It does not have a separate page on Commons but the page on GitHub is https://github.com/edouardhue/comeon and it seems quite useful for smaller uploads. Best, Arne Wossink Projectleider / Project Lead Wikimedia Nederland Tel. +31 (0)6 11000505 (di, wo, do) *Postadres*: * Bezoekadres:* Postbus 167 Mariaplaats 3 3500 AD Utrecht Utrecht

2 3

Overwriting possible if file not edited by other users Re: Same user? Re: Yes Re: Batch re-uploading images to Commons in higher resolution?
by Hans Muller 18 Dec '15

18 Dec '15

@Arne and experts: We can overwrite a file with GWToolset provided no other user has edited the file. Perhaps experts are aware of further options with GWT for overwriting files. Examples: 1. GWToolset overwriting with a different resolution succeeded for https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Naturalis_Biodiversity_Center_-_RMN… checking the box "Reload media from URL" down the page. The new resolution is considered a new version. (Here a downgrade as a test.) The old version remains available. 2. GWToolset overwriting failed for https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Naturalis_Biodiversity_Center_- >> _RMNH.MOL.216649_-_Mitra_aurantia_aurantia_%28Gmelin,_1791%29_-_Mitrida >> e_-_Mollusc_shell.jpeg with or without that box checked because "A media file with the identical title "File:Naturalis Biodiversity Center - RMNH.MOL.216649 - Mitra aurantia aurantia (Gmelin, 1791) - Mitridae - Mollusc shell.jpeg" already exists in the wiki. It was edited or created by someone other than you" - another user had edited the categories. Best regards, hans muller https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hansmuller Op Do, 17 december, 2015 12:39 pm schreef Arne Wossink: > @Hans, > > > Thanks for the input so far. Please keep me updated on that overwrite. If > anything, it is once again a reminder that these things must be done > right the first time around ;) > > Best, > > > > Arne Wossink > > > Projectleider / Project Lead Wikimedia Nederland > > > Tel. +31 (0)6 11000505 > (di, wo, do) > > > *Postadres*: * > Bezoekadres:* > Postbus 167 Mariaplaats 3 > 3500 AD Utrecht Utrecht > > > 2015-12-17 12:34 GMT+01:00 Hans Muller <j.m.muller(a)hccnet.nl>: > > >> We're talking about >> >> >> >> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Media_contributed_by_Museum >> _Catharijneconvent >> >> >> ? Main uploader there was HuskyBot i think. >> >> >> I made a mistake some months a go while uploading photographs of dead >> bird skins for Naturalis with GWToolset with various views for the same >> specimen uploaded under the same filename. So that is like uploading a >> higher resolution, an image with a different checksum under the same >> name. You see the result here: >> >> >> >> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Naturalis_Biodiversity_Center_- >> _RMNH.AVES.101712_-_Corvus_enca_compilator_Richmond,_1903_-_Corvidae_-_ >> bird_skin_specimen.jpeg >> >> (scroll down) >> Later uploads under the same filename by GWToolset were accepted as new >> versions. Caveat: the uploader was the same user for these various >> "versions". >> >> >> Best regards, hansmuller >> >> >> PS At the end of my present batch (18/12 morning?) GWToolset is >> requested to overwrite medium resolution >> >> >> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Naturalis_Biodiversity_Center_- >> _RMNH.MOL.216649_-_Mitra_aurantia_aurantia_%28Gmelin,_1791%29_-_Mitrida >> e_-_Mollusc_shell.jpeg >> >> with large, so we'll see. I can put up a test image to test if another >> GWToolset user can overwrite >> it (?). I don't think so, this might be Arnes problem. >> >> >> >> >> Op Do, 17 december, 2015 11:30 am schreef Jesse de Vos: >> >>> Hi Arne, >>> I actually don't think this can be done. It is an action in which an >>> existing file on Commons must be updated, this is not supported by the >>> toolset. We had a similar issue with higher res. Video files. We >>> decided to stick with the current resolution. Alternatively, a >>> volunteer could do this update using a script. Best, Jesse >>> >>> >>> >>> verzonden vanaf mijn smartphone|sent from my smart phone Op 17 dec. >>> 2015 >>> 11:03 schreef "Hans Muller" <j.m.muller(a)hccnet.nl>: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Dear Arne, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, this is a modest batch that can be done with the GW toolset, >>>> most easily if the images each have a (temporary) individual URL and >>>> so are accessible on the internet. >>>> >>>> Groeten, hans muller >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Op Do, 17 december, 2015 10:57 am schreef Arne Wossink: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Museum Catharijneconvent has approached us that they would like >>>>> to make higher-resolution versions available of images that are >>>>> already available on Commons. Around 800-1500 images are involved. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Is this something that can be handled by the GW toolset, or are >>>>> there better ways to do this? >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Arne Wossink >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Projectleider / Project Lead Wikimedia Nederland >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Tel. +31 (0)6 11000505 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Postadres*: * >>>>> Bezoekadres:* >>>>> Postbus 167 >>>>> Mariaplaats >>>>> 3 >>>>> 3500 AD Utrecht Utrecht >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Glamtools mailing list >>>>> Glamtools(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Glamtools mailing list >>>> Glamtools(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Glamtools mailing list >>> Glamtools(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Glamtools mailing list >> Glamtools(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Glamtools mailing list > Glamtools(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools > >

3 2

Batch re-uploading images to Commons in higher resolution?
by Arne Wossink 17 Dec '15

17 Dec '15

Hi all, Museum Catharijneconvent has approached us that they would like to make higher-resolution versions available of images that are already available on Commons. Around 800-1500 images are involved. Is this something that can be handled by the GW toolset, or are there better ways to do this? Best, Arne Wossink Projectleider / Project Lead Wikimedia Nederland Tel. +31 (0)6 11000505 *Postadres*: * Bezoekadres:* Postbus 167 Mariaplaats 3 3500 AD Utrecht Utrecht

3 4

Request GWToolset userrights on Beta
by Jens Best 15 Dec '15

15 Dec '15

Hi, I'm request GWToolset userrights on Beta to pratice. User:Jensbest

2 1

Beta GWToolset request
by Martin Poulter 15 Dec '15

15 Dec '15

Hi all. In accordance with the instructions at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Extension:GWToolset#Username_.26_user_r… , I'd like to be given the Beta GWToolset user rights so as to carry out testing of bulk imports from the Digital Bodleian as part of my residency at the Bodleian Libraries. My unified login for the Wikimedia projects is MartinPoulter. The images each have a permanent URL which redirects to a server where they are currently located, so the two domains I'd like whitelisted are http://iiif.bodleian.ox.ac.uk<http://iiif.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/iiif/image/4a53ccf2-53c2-46d1-98a2-cd6f679e9c…> and http://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/ An example query: http://iiif.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/iiif/image/4a53ccf2-53c2-46d1-98a2-cd6f679e9c… is a permanent URL which links to http://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/fcgi-bin/iipsrv.fcgi?IIIF=/silos/digital.b… Thanks in advance for any help,

2 1

Learning Pattern Data transfers to Wikimedia Commons: Sharing institutional archives
by Nicolas Rück 10 Dec '15

10 Dec '15

We published a learning pattern in english and german with a focus on the GWToolset. Share it if you think it's useful: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Learning_patterns/Data_transfers_to_… Regards Nico -- Nicolas Rück Ideenförderung Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 http://wikimedia.de Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/ Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.

4 4

Update on the status of tiff rendering bugs (Was TIFF error when using Bulk Uploader)
by Brian Wolff 08 Dec '15

08 Dec '15

So about a week ago, there was a thread about tiff files not working as well as they should. Here's a status update: The good news: The 16-bit greyscale tiff files not rendering bug (T116947) is now fixed and the fix is live on commons. This affected a lot of images from the library of congress. Previously they showed up as either all black, or mostly white with a couple black lines. Now they work. The more meh news: We've identified a fix for the issue where pages after the first page of a large tiff do not render (T117349). This is a good step forward, but the fix is currently stuck pending review and I'm not sure what time frame the fix will be reviewed in. Tiff (and djvu) files on the beta cluster do not render (T116816). The people who maintain the beta cluster have put it on their list of next things to do. So hopefully it will be fixed soon. In the mean time, if you really need to see what a tiff would look like uploaded but don't want to put it in real commons, you can use test.wikipedia.org (but alas, gwtoolset does not work in that domain) -- -bawolff p.s. Fun fact that might interest the Basel University Library folks - If you order all the tiffs on commons by file size, 18 of the top 20 are from Basel University Library.

5 9

Getting metadata back from Wikimedia Commons
by Jesse de Vos 27 Nov '15

27 Nov '15

Hi everyone, We’re trying to get a clearer picture of what material we have on Wikimedia Commons so that our next batch upload doesn’t duplicate with material that is already on Commons. The category: Media from Open Beelden contains all the files and we would like to have all the metadata on Commons for that category (specifically the 'source' URL) to match against our new content upload. Does anyone know how to gather this using the Commons API? Basically, a call to the API with the “File:title <file:///Applications/Colloquy.app/Contents/Resources/Styles/Standard.colloquyStyle/Contents/Resources/title>” field that would return a JSON object with all the metadata is exactly what we need. Help would be much appreciated! Best, Jesse -- Met vriendelijke groet, *Jesse de Vos* Researcher Interactive and New Media *T* 035 - 677 39 37 *Aanwezig:* ma t/m do <http://www.beeldengeluid.nl/> *Nederlands Instituut voor Beeld en Geluid* *Media Parkboulevard 1, 1217 WE Hilversum | Postbus 1060, 1200 BB Hilversum | * *beeldengeluid.nl* <http://www.beeldengeluid.nl/>

5 4

Rights for GLAM group accounts
by Fæ 19 Nov '15

19 Nov '15

Link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Rights_for_GLAM_group_accounts I have raised this question on the Bureaucrat's noticeboard. As not that many people watch that page, I'm flagging it on this email list, though if you would like to join in with discussion on how GLAM group accounts ought to be accountable, especially for GWT access, it would probably help to respond on commons even if you want to email about it first here. :-) Here's the text of my post: == Rights for GLAM group accounts == Hi, though on Commons we (the community) can accept group accounts being run, my understanding is that the intention is that there must be ''a responsible and accountable individual'' that runs the account at the time specific edits are made. By granting significant rights to apparent group accounts, we run a far greater risk that later inexperienced users will inherit the account for later projects without this being publicly declared, and without a chance for the community to ask questions about their intentions, or to double check whether new projects are still in-scope, or that appropriate thought has been given to the policies that apply (such as for the best licenses or templates to use). There is a risk that later "account owners" will not be responsible for past projects/edits by earlier owners; when they accept rights for the account it probably would be beneficial to spell out that the community will expect them to remain responsible for all edits made, and be prepared to answer questions that arise from earlier projects. I am not suggesting that we should stop allowing group accounts asking for rights, but there appears to be no questioning before handing out significant rights as to how they will be managed by the institution long term. If the intended projects are time-limited (as GWT uploads have invariably been in the past), then I see no harm in encouraging a ''project'' based name, or even better ''project manager + project name'' account in preference to a permanent and open-ended institution account. This way if later projects pop up, the institution representative or new project managers need only ask for further accounts to have similar rights on the same basis as the original request. (Tangent) It is worth considering that our norm for being tolerant of anonymity is rarely an issue for official representatives of institutions and may even be confusing or detrimental if issues arise with edits from such accounts. Thanks Fae -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
18
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Glamtools