User talk:Ilmari Karonen/archives/2

Please add new topics to the bottom of the page. If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page to avoid fragmenting the discussion. If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will be watching it, so you're most welcome to reply there rather than here.

Archives: 1 (last archive partly transcluded on this page)

MediaWiki:AjaxTranslation.js

It's severely pissing me of. How do I disable it? Multichill (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added a quick-and-dirty option to disable this feature by adding

window.disableAjaxTranslation = true;

to your monobook.js or vector.js. (It should probably be made into a Gadget if several users want it.) However, I'd also suggest that you might want to leave at note at, say, MediaWiki talk:AjaxTranslation.js about exactly why you find this new feature annoying, so that such criticism can be taken into account when deciding whether we want to keep it and how it might be improved in the future. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a fun toy, but it's very annoying to have it enabled when you're working on templates and don't know what the hell is happening because the clicks are hijacked. Multichill (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sediment in the Gulf of Mexico (2) edit

Dear Ilmari Karonen, Thanks for retouching Sediment in the Gulf of Mexico (2). Is there any chance of replacing the original upload with your retouced version? What do you think about adding the annotations to your retouced version as well? Originalwana (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel my version should replace the original, as the modifications I've made include some subjective "artistic" adjustments done by a non-expert (me) without full proper regard to scientific accuracy. It's "fudged data". Sure, it looks better, but I can't really make any guarantees that, in trying to make it look better, I haven't accidentally obliterated some subtle details of geological or hydrological interest. (I know I wiped out a few small clouds, even if it's not really noticeable unless you compare the two versions pixel by pixel.)

Your suggestion of copying the image notes is a good one though, and I've just done that. For that matter, a few more notes from people familiar with the geography of the area (like names of the rivers) could be useful. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Vicinal railway maps

I used and combined several sources to draw the maps:

• The starting point is a partial foto of a 1978 GTF national railmap (black and white). This map is no longer available or sold. The vicinal railway lines on the GTF map are very small dotted lines. However there were many errors, imprecisions and corrections for wich I used a lot of (sometimes conflicting) sources. These where:
• Michelin road maps
• Vicinal railmaps of "Rail Atlas vicinal"
• The vicinal story (light Railways in Belgium)
• Detailed walking maps
• Google Earth
• railway timetable of 1933
• Tram/railway map of Brussel
• Personal hikes along the tracks (File:Tunnel spoorlijn 25A onder 25 en 27.JPG, File:Essene-Lombeek oude spoorbrug.JPG
• Discussions with other wikipedians over the precise route of a line.

When I am ready with a map, there is not single byte left of the original picture. All railway lines/vicinal lines have been redrawn with the hand, using the other sources. (thicker and smaller lines, lines and stations deleted and added, etc) I have added a lot of locations and other details. All text is my own.

There is a discussion as what is an original map. Al maps have to start from somewhere and it is inevitable that as a representation of a reality, al maps wil look similar. These are the same railway lines and information. (content) What ultimately makes the difference is the styling en way of presentation, not the content. (Look for example at roadmaps of the same area) Besides there is a lot of original content. Each map cost me a lot off effort and time. The styling and colours are original and my own. A strongly object to refering the maps as derivative works.

Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want I can send the "starting" map if you want to judge for yourself.

Replied at your talk page. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Technical problem with Image:US_90_map.svg

You commented about Image:US_90_map.svg on a friend's talk page. Well, I took a look at the file, and that's not US 90 highlighted in red on that map. It's US 101. US 90 would run east–west along the southern tier of states as implied by the number and the grid pattern for the US Highway numbering scheme. Imzadi1979 (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, that is indeed a problem (although not the technical one I was commenting about). I think I'll go and rename it to File:US 101 map.svg. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

ogg file bot

Hi, since you seem experienced with bots and the like, I would like to ask you a favor. I'm trying to kick off a project which aims to provide spoken examples to all German wiktionary articles. There are a number of subtasks, one of which is the management of the files on commons. The files are (currently) uploaded using commonist, which does not allow for an automatically generated description (depending on the file name). I succeeded (with User:Snowmanradio's help) to write an AWB script, which does the necessary follow-up edits such as this one, for example. However, AWB is terribly slow (takes some 10 seconds per edit), and since this is only the tip of the iceberg of the project to come, I'm in need for a fully automated routine. Could you write or help me writing a bot to do this task. I can give you the AWB replacement script, so I presume this will be an easy task for an insider, but I have no experience with bots, so I'm somewhat hesitant.

Another option would be to create an upload script which does the job in one step. Perhaps this would even be better than modifying the uploaded files a posteriori. If you could help me doing this alternatively, I'd be much indebted.

Thanks, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

EXIF array-valued fields (GPS)

Are you still interested in bugzilla:13172? If so, could you take a look at my new patch to fix this at least for the GPS coordinates for all newly uploaded files? The longer we wait fixing this, the more files we'll have where we would have to re-compute the metadata from scratch, and as I understood Tim's comments, that's a problem. Lupo 07:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll take a look at it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statistics categroy

Hi Ilmari Karonen, could you add this category to your sourcecode as well so it won't get overwritten? Thank you, Multichill (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Actually, I should really rewrite the whole thing to make it template-based and localizable, but I haven't managed to fully work out the setup yet. Anyway, thanks for the notice. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Teknistä apua

Moi! Olen huomannut, että olet taitava kuvanmuokkaaja. Yritin tuossa tehdä paria panoraamakuvaa, mutta niiden yhdistäminen oli minulle liian hankalaa, sillä kuvat on otettu käsivaralta, eikä automaattinen "liimaus" tuota haluttua lopputulosta. Jos lataisin yksittäiset kuvat tänne, olisiko mahdollista, että yrittäisit tehdä kuville voitavasi? —kallerna™ 12:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yrittää voi aina, takuuta en anna. :) Laita vaan kuvat tänne tai jonnekin nettiin ladattavaksi, niin katon, saisko niistä mitään aikaiseksi. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Okei. :) Eli kuvat ovat tässä: 1., 2., 3., 4., 5. ja 6.

Homman ei pitäisi olla mahdoton, sillä itse yritin kuvia sovittaa panoraamaan noin viisi kertaa ja aina tuli liimausvirheitä, mutta eri kohtaan (suhteellisen hermostuttavaa hommaa). Kuvia ei ole nyt muokattu yhtään, vaan muutin ne vain RAW-tiedostoista JPG-tiedostoiksi. Parin ensimmäisen väribalanssi on hieman erilainen kuin muiden, joten niitä kannattaa hieman muokata ennen liimausta. Kiitokset jo etukäteen! —kallerna™ 16:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Entäs onnistuuko varjon häivyttäminen tästä kuvasta? Siis se varjo, joka on siinä vasemmalla puolella ja ainakin omasta mielestäni häiritsee kuvaa. —kallerna™ 17:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Njaa, kokeilla voin, mutta vähän epäilen tuon onnistumista. Valaistus varjon alueella on niin paljon pehmeämpi, että siitä ei ihan pelkillä käyräsäädöillä saa saman näköistä kuin suorassa auringonvalossa olevat alueet. Toki voisin myös koittaa ihan kylmästi vaan kloonata koko varjon pois. (Ps. Yritin tuota panoraamaa koota aiemmin, mutten minäkään saanut sitä ensi yrittämällä saumattua kovin hyvin. Lähinnä ongelmia tuli alareunan portaiden kanssa, niitä on vaikea saada yhdistettyä ilman ylimääräisiä mutkia. Täytynee joskus myöhemmin koittaa uudestaa paremman ajan kanssa.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Lataa edes jonkilainen yritys, on se varmaan parempi kuin oma versioni. —kallerna™ 16:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Tässä olis ensimmäinen yritys tuosta kairauskuvasta. Tämän verran sain aikaan ihan vaan värikäyriä säätämällä ja maskaamalla. Yllättävän hyvin tuokin jo toimii, kaukaa katsottuna menee miltei täydestä. :) Koitan tuosta panoraamastakin uppia piakkoin jonkin version. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No niin, tässä olis se panoraamakin. Siistin siitä pahimpia liimausvirheitä, mutta muutama aika näkyvä vielä jäljelle. Kaikki "haamut" ja ihmisenpuolikkaat sain uskoakseni kyllä korjattua, vaikkakin vasemman reunan ihmismassaan saattoi ehkä joku pariton raaja jäädä. :) (Tai no, näkyy tuonne vielä muutama rampa jääneen kun tarkemmin katsoo. Koitan niitä myöhemmin korjailla, tältä illalta saa riittää.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Onhan tuolla vielä muutama liimausvirhe, mutta ehdottomasti hyvää työtä, kiitoksia. Nykyisellään kelpaa jo ihan hyvin koristamaan artikkelia Hansakortteli. :) —kallerna™ 10:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Moi taas! Onko kuvasta mahdollista poistaa ikkunan tuomia heijastuksia, niinkuin esimerkiksi tässä kuvassa? —kallerna™ 11:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Teoriassa joo, mutta oon tuota itse aiemmin yrittänyt pari kertaa, ja jälki on kyllä ollut täysin onnetonta. Tuohon vois tietysti vaan röyhkeästi koittaa kloonata pahimpien heijastusten päälle uutta taivasta. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Tuossa kuvassa oli juuri pahimmat heijastukset, sitten on vielä monia kuvia joissa on pienempiä heijastuksia. Pystyisitkö tekemään tuosta kuvasta jonkinlaisen yrityksen, ei tosiaan haittaa kuinka laadukas lopputulos on? —kallerna™ 11:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Floor plans and copyright

Hi Illmari,

I was looking for the copyright policy of floor plans and I found what you wrote on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Altbirnau Grundriss.jpg. Your third point exactly summarizes my current questions.

Finally, if the drawing is in fact modern, the question still remains whether it is copyrightable. IANAL, but it seems at least possible to me that any accurate floor plan drawn of the same building according to all applicable standards and conventions would end up looking essentially identical to this one, in which case by the merger doctrine the drawing would be ineligible for copyright. Also not being an architect, I can't really say anything definite about this point.

I was wondering if you now have any answer regarding this issue ? --Pethrus (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No more than I had when I wrote that, really — I'm still neither a lawyer nor an architect. :-) I'd still consider it a reasonable interpretation, based on the general principles underlying most copyright laws, that any copyright to a factually accurate floor plan, drawn using standard notation and conventions of the trade, of an old building whose copyright as an architectural work has expired, would have to be very narrow and tenuous at best. That said, different jurisdictions (and different courts within a jurisdiction) may interpret the idea-expression divide differently, and I'm not quite ready to entirely exclude the possibility than some of them might find verbatim copying of such a floor plan infringing, despite the general lack of originality in the copied work. It would help to have some references to existing case law on the matter, if and where such exists, but I don't know of any (nor have I actually looked for them).

Having written that, it did occur to me that precedents from Feist v. Rural and related cases (including Bridgeman v. Corel, which is cited in COM:ART) could perhaps be seen as supporting this interpretation, at least in the United States. However, I don't know if any court has actually applied them to cases specifically involving architectural works. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I thought, as you did, of the Bridgeman v. Corel case, and this idea of "no originality, no copyright" in the US (and I'm glad Commons server aren't here in France where there would be not be even PD-art). Do you have any idea where I should go / to who I should speak to learn more about this ? --Pethrus (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.... and a barnstar

Ilmari, thanks for fixing File:El Baúl 8.jpg, great work - much better than I expected. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For taking the time to fix File:El Baúl 8.jpg and so make it usable, a sincere thank you! Simon Burchell (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Debate and Oratory

File:1909_Tyee_-_Debate_and_Oratory_illustration.png: Beautiful. Thank you. - Jmabel ! talk 02:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:ID-USMil

Thanks for your help with Template:ID-USMil and the subpages. I always tried to get this template autotranslated but it included Incorrect ID-USMil files everytime and I had no idea how to fix that. Thanks for your help again! --D-Kuru (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hiding pagetitle in namespace view-mode

// Hide title when viewing the main page (but not when editing it or viewing the talk page)
if (wgNamespaceNumber == 0 && wgAction == "view") {
   appendCSS("#firstHeading { display: none; }");
}

I think you forgot something there, the pagetitle is hiding on all pages in the main namespace. I've reverted the actication of the script for now. –Krinkle^talk 20:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I know how to fix it, but I dont have time now. Please experiment in your own MyPage/vector.js before going public. –Krinkle^talk 20:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

*facepalm* I thought I'd tested it thoroughly, but apparently I simply didn't notice that the title was missing on normal gallery pages. A case of inattentional blindness, I suppose. :( Anyway, I've fixed (and tested) it now. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. –Krinkle^talk 00:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Extracting code to .js pages

Hi, I've noticed you've moved two scrips (MediaWiki:InterProject.js now aswell) to a seperate page. I'm not sure why you are doing this. It means 1) the script won't load untill importScript() is initialised and fired, and 2) the browser will have to excucute an additional function, insert a script in the body and download an additional file with the script in it.

Asuming you reason is to keep things central, I recommend copying scripts to MediaWiki:Common.js instead of exporting to another page and calling importScript() in Monobook.js and Vector.js.

As I'm not sure about your motivation, I'm waiting with doing that. –Krinkle^talk 00:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason I put MediaWiki:MainPages.js on a separate page is so that it can be loaded conditionally — it's quite long (over 4 kb) and completely useless outside the main (and talk) namespaces. I'd assume (though I haven't tried to verify this) that a noticeable fraction, if not a majority, of visitors to Commons never stray outside the file and category namespaces, so having this code on a separate page ought to save bandwidth for them, and possibly even improve responsiveness on the first page view. I'll admit that that's all very conjectural, though.

For MediaWiki:InterProject.js I had no such reason — it's simply IMO easier to test code that way, since one can use the withJS parameter. Also, some versions of the code would've broken badly on skins other than the four supported ones (Vector, Modern, MonoBook and Chick), although I think that the latest version should handle unexpected skins safely (and it could always be wrapped in something like if (skin == "monobook" || skin == "vector" || skin == "modern" || skin == "chick") { ... }).

Anyway, if you feel that either or both of those scripts would be better merged to Common.js, I won't object to that. In the end, it seems to make very little difference — the script(s) are cached by the browser after the first load anyway. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ilmari Karonen/archives. You have new messages at Ks0stm's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 18:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

MIME type statistics for enwiki?

Hello, do you have MIME type statistics for files that exist on enwiki (i.e. not including files that are merely transcluded from commons)? Thanks, Tisane (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No, but it shouldn't be hard to run the bot on the enwiki database too. In fact, making the code more modular so that it could be easily run on multiple wikis has been on my "to do" list for a long time, I've just never got around to it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of the National Party

• Original
• SVG

Hi Ilmari Karonen, can you move a little bit the star, is lightly descentered if you look the base it touchs the body of the axe, thanks for now. --Kineto007 (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If you look carefully to the border of the 1st and 2nd flag of the left side you will notice that they have a straight edge, in comparison with the borders of the 1st and 2nd flags from the right that have a slightly "curved" edge instead of a straight one like it should be, can you fix it please? --Kineto007 (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The tips of the spears are not sharp enough, like in the original. And there are many more imperfections that should be corrected, like the lines in the axe body for example. Please do not change the color it's correct, and the suns too, thanks in advance. --Kineto007 (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Could you do the work? --Kineto007 (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I'll have much time to work on this in the near term. (And, to be honest, this is not a job that particularly interests me.) Instead of spamming the talk pages of random editors, why don't you just let the request stay on the graphic lab page and see if anyone takes it. I do have it on my watchlist, you know, and I expect so do most people that contribute there. Or, you know, if you feel too impatient for that, you could just download Inkscape and fix it yourself. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: What's generating these

In answer to this edit: Facebook.

See also User talk:Justass/2010#Strange filename. –Krinkle^talk 13:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Now that I know what to search for, I did some digging myself, and it seems the actual pattern is \d+_\d+_\d+_\d+_\d+_[tsn]\.jpg, where the letter gives the size and the third and fourth groups of digits are the ID and PID respectively. Apparently, there's also an older(?) format matching [tsn]\d+_\d+_\d+\.jpg, where the ID and PID are the first two groups.

I added both regexps to the blacklist now, but given how nice and informative these file names are, I'm now wondering if it might be better to just let them through and log them with the Abuse Filter instead. That might help us catch some lazy copyviolators. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I came to your talk page because I was worried the new title blacklist rule might actually help copyright violators get under the radar, but I see you've thought of that too. It would be great if the Abuse Filter solution could be implemented, as those images are copyright violations 99% of the time. –Tryphon^☂ 15:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

MOTD

I've begun the work of setting this up - right now, it's pretty much a clone of PotD, but we can pretty easily work from that (and it's not like the current setup is much different, if you removed the brokenness). The next step is deciding aesthetics - I've set up a discussion at Template talk:New Motd. Once we've decided on Aesthetics, it should be fairly easy to get everything in, and then we just need to do the PotD/MotD combined page (for translation). Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at Template:New_Potd/2010-05. It's a rough mockup. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good (enough) to me. :) Haven't really poked at the internals yet, but on the surface it looks OK. That's a scary number of transclusions, though... but I guess it can't really be avoided. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I cut it down to as few as possible. It's why parts of it are hard coded.Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, what do you think of asking to use June as a test month for the new PotD/MotD system? I think we have workable code right now - it needs prettied up, of course, but that shouldn't be too bad - and a test would be useful for finding out if there's going to be issues. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

ThoseBloodyBuskers

Hi Ilmari, I've provided more info concerning the deletion of this file. I would appreciate if you read my newer comments. --84.72.0.237 17:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Merkur train

File:Merkur train.jpg - Was it really necessary? So you can continue and apply this practice on thousands other files on common. I think that the label from W.Rebel alias Hapesoft had nothing to do with protection of human rights but it had quite different reason. --PetrS. (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You may be right, but surely you'll agree that the image is better now for having the irrelevant background cropped away? If not, feel free to revert it — it's a wiki, you can do that. I would suggest trying to look at the matter from a neutral perspective first, though: there's no use in keeping an inferior image just to spite someone you disagree with. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I anonymise persons on the pictures, I want to let there an atmosphere of the exhibition. User:Hapesoft alias User:W.Rebel has no relation to these persons, he has only problem with me because I permanently repair their mistakes in articles cs:Vykolejení and cs:Průjezd obloukem - if you want see discussions at this articles, although you do not understand czech, watch the lenghty and frequency. He does not understand this problematic very well - this confirmed me some people from czech railway research institute (VUZ). Human rights - this is only one part of their revenge. --PetrS. (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for everything that you did on Commons and the support that you gave me! --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Restoration

Hello Ilmari. I was wondering if you could restoreFile:Edwin McMasters Stanton Secretary of War.jpg? This file is in pretty bad condition, and the damage is very visible. Please restore from the original .tiff file. Thanks in advance. Connormah (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

MotD

Well, that went pretty well. 3 weeks to completely revamp a major part of the site, from seeking permission to apparent end point =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

JP2

Hi! I converted JP2s into PNGs, but the PNGs are so large that they don't display thumbnails.

Do you suggest JPGs? If so, what free program is the best one that converts images without loss of color information? WhisperToMe (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

JPEG should work in that case, yes. Any image editor that understands both formats should do for the conversion — they all use basically the same code for JP2 decoding and JPEG encoding, and there are no special tricks (that I know of, anyway) for doing it faster or with fewer losses than the usual way. The best you can do when saving is set quality to maximum (usually 100) and turn off chroma subsampling (or set it to 1:1:1). Also turn off blurring, if such an option is given, and save in normal rather than progressive order. (The image scaling code doesn't particularly like progressive JPEGs.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

---

End of last archive; please add new topics below this note.

---

Thank you

Thanks for uploading that new version of the Confederate currency. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, many thanks again for removing the watermark on the Lidian Emerson daguerreotype. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, thanks for removing the odd-looking code on the Hingham street sign photo. I was pretty new here then, and seem to have fouled that one up. Thanks for fixing it. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

your license changes to several German locator map files

Hi Ilmari, I'm puzzled by your license changes to a number of locator maps of German municipalities. While I openly admit that I'm far from being literate in the field of licences it still strikes me as odd that it should be admissable to alter and/or revoke a licence that was once attached to a work when it was uploaded, unless there's an obvious error, even more so when that change is being made by someone who evidently has no connection with those files whatsoever. Therefore I'd like to ask you to explain the grounds of your actions and I'd also like to ask you to refrain from any further changes to any files that carries my alias as creator until we have reached a satisfactory explanation. Thank you! --Hagar66 (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've already left you a message on your talk page about the changes I made. Anyway, to summarize:

• The previous license tags on the images in Category:Locator maps of municipalities in Landkreis Cuxhaven were a mess, with several redundant and duplicate licenses listed.
• All the images appear to be derivative works of File:Lower Saxony location map.svg by NordNordWest. This image is only licensed under {{GFDL}} and {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}, both of which are "copyleft" licenses that only allow the distribution of derivatives under the same license (or a later version thereof). Thus, none of the other license appear to have been valid.
• Also, the license tags did not correctly attribute NordNordWest (nor yourself) as one of the authors of the images, which is something both licenses require. While you are free to waive the attribution requirement for yourself, you cannot legally omit NordNordWest's name from the attribution unless you've received specific permission from them to do so.

If you actually have explicit written permission from NordNordWest and TUBS to release those files under some license other than GFDL or CC-BY-SA 3.0, please point me to it and I'll be happy to correct the licensing for you. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the two messages crossed each other timewise. I have left TUBS a message. He was the originator of the basic file for the district and I copied the license section from that file. --Hagar66 (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Before I start I wanna thank you, Ilmari, that you checked our file descriptions. It seems to be really rare that people cope with the problems that do occur with the license policies in Comnmons. I'm kind of responisble to the "mess" you discoverd. Well, now I want to try to comment on the points you made:

• I'd like to see that you you consult either Hagar or myself before changing anything in our license sections unless correcting obvious errors. This seems to be only fair.
• Derivative images of NNW: well, I'm not a legal expert. I think it is much more complicated than you think. Yes, I used NNW's file. I do state that openly. But all sources stated are virtually equally used to create our CUX maps. In addition, I generalized many borders and adjusted some rivers and so forth. I consider the new files therefore to be a completely new work. Please check de:Rechte an Geoinformationen (you stated basic german language skills) which I find to be kind of a suitable summary of the legal situation appliable in this case. Hence I can license this work under any licence I consider to be right, though I'm absolutely sure that these "remix works" are touching unchartered legal territory - at least in Germany. However, I can't understand why I should consider NNW's (who should be perfectly informed about our maps since the beginning back in 2009 or 2008) licenses more than any of the others' sources license requirements. It makes no sense to me. Hence, the term NordNordWest, TUBS & Hagar66, ... at the beginning of the license section doesn't seem to fit. Let me be clear: I'm the original author. I created the mother of all maps. Hagar helped me to adjust the maps to the towns in the district. I'm the guy who is choosing the license terms. Hagar did not substantially change the map. He did not create a new work. I'm the only one who shuld be stated as author in the license section. (Hagar was authorized by me to change the licenses in the way he ever thinks to be appropriate cause we consider all 10.000+ locator maps we made so far as shared work. Therefore it's perfectly OK that he states himself as another author of this map).
• redundant licenses You are not the first one that uttered this idea. F
  • First, I'm the guy who chooses the licenses. Let me do what I ever I want as long as I've chosen one license that complies with the Commons policies.
  • Second,I want to distribute my files under the less restrivtive terms. That's why I've chosen so many license terms. If you think that PD only is then fine in this case, I disagree. There is no thing likle PD e.g. in Germnay. As I said, I'm not a legal expert. I was enrolled to some legal courses at universities in both the U.S. and Germany, though. So I've at least some basic legal insights. As it doesnt't apply in Germany it's up to German courts if they think a PD-license is somehow legally binding. I've never heard a German court did so. So I've to add the much more elaborated GNU or CC licenses. But here is what I consider to be an other problem with the license terms: Sometime you want to mix files that are licensed under different files. Assume on file to be CC-sa only, the 2nd on GNU only, the third file PD only. What now? Your remixed file can't respect all license terms equally. Got me? (Maybe some of my license terms are absolutely redundant in some cases but I find it hard which are really redundant. Please don't start to argue with me on this issue. I assume we are both no legal experts). Multiple, seemingly redundant, licenses allows remixing files. And that's exactly what I do consider to be the basic Wiki principles.--TUBS 17:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me just briefly reply to a few points you (TUBS) raised above:

• If you combine works under different licenses, you can only release the resulting work under terms permitted by the licenses of both of the original works. (If the original works are released under multiple licenses, any terms permitted by at least one license of each original work will do.) Your goal of using the broadest possible set of licenses for your works is thus indeed laudable, but you cannot do that on behalf of others: when you upload a file based on someone else's work(s), you must respect the license(s) they've chosen or ask them to change them.
• In the paragraph starting with "Derivative images of NNW", you appear to be arguing either that a) File:Lower Saxony location map.svg is not eligible for copyright, or that b) the file as a whole is eligible for copyright, but the parts of it that you used in your own (and in Hagar66's) maps aren't. I'm not, as you correctly suspect, really legally qualified to judge the first possibility (although, from my cursory reading of the German Wikipedia article you cited, it seems unlikely to me), but I find the second rather hard to accept, particularly for File:Locator map CUX in Lower Saxony.svg where all you did was change the color of one district. As for the other images in Category:Locator maps of municipalities in Landkreis Cuxhaven, let me point out that each of them also contains an essentially complete copy of File:Lower Saxony location map.svg, even if most of it is hidden outside the page boundaries.
• Some of the licenses that I changed were indeed just plain redundant, e.g. including both {{Cc-by-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} and {{Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}}. That was why I assumed that the duplication was probably unintentional, due to some sort of user or software error, and why I chose to fix them first before contacting Hagar66 to let them know I'd done so. I may have been too hasty in making this assumption; if so, I apologize for that.

Anyway, if you want to release those maps under a more permissive set of licenses than GFDL + CC-BY-SA, the easiest solution would be to ask NordNordWest to change the license of their original map(s) accordingly. For the sake of readability, I'd recommend trying to keep the license list relatively short (less than several pages) by choosing a few permissive licenses rather than many restrictive ones. In particular, if you're concerned about the validity of {{PD-self}} in Germany, may I suggest either {{Cc-by-3.0-de}} (which is specifically designed for use under German law, and permits release of derivative works under any license as long as the attribution requirement is preserved) and/or {{Cc-zero}} (which is essentially a more legally rigorous version of PD-self, letting you "waiv[e] all of [your] rights to the work [...] to the extent allowable by law"). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi thx for your information. I think we made our points. I'm rethinking my file descriptions and will consult NNW also. There is a Kartenwerkstatt (map laboratory) in the German Wikipedia that I will ask too.

I'd like to add something. I ment ,that I created a new work because I colored the maps (that's kind of an arguable portion of own creative outcome - that made me think that I'm again the Creator of Locator map CUX in Lower Saxony.svg though this was based on NNW file), I added towns' borders based on a second file (while the boundaries are to my legal understanding are not subject of copyright issues as they are always official works), I manipulated the svg-code in a way that made fillings possible (it's not a design but a code/software issue.- again I thought this is a creative act itself so making Locator map CUX in Lower Saxony.svg becoming my work.), etc. I'm not sure if decisions on copyright status of file has to take also the hidden parts (I knopw that they are there!) into account (I really don't... but this is a odd situation anyway. The question is: is a svg-file is more like a picture or more like a set of code (or data base), that contains descriptions of hidden and unhidden graphical objects).

As we don't know whats's wrong or right, I suggest you leave your changes to the file description as it is right know.--TUBS 21:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to give a short update on this issue. I started a kind of open discussion on de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Kartenwerkstatt. NNW is involved in that discussion. It's in German, though. I don't know if you understand the discussion, but I will give you a short summary of the outcome in English. --TUBS 09:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright here is the short summary. The answer is: maybe or it depends or it's hzard to say ;-). We discussed the whole issue under the terms of German Copyright law. That's reasonable as far as the providers of used sources and authors are German based. However we all agree that this discussion touches legal issues that are not fully elaborated in German law and where it is up to German courts to find answers to these questions. I suggested not talk about my redundant licenses - this seems to be a personal preference that doesn't do any harm.

• So, who is the author? We are not sure about that. But it's likely that the author is any persons who modifies a work and uploads it, which also inlcudes minor changes like changing colours or adding labels to maps. So it seems reasonable that only this author should be named in first place whereas it is preferable to add the sources' author also in the author section of the file if it's really a simple revision of that file. No one uttered an oppinion whether to add authors of later modifications of that specific map (new versions by overwriting the old file and adding another version to file history) to the file description or license section. So we are not sure if your modifications of the I, the author section is correct or incorrect. My personal view is that it doesn't do any harm, so why not adding more authors (like you did) that paticipated in creating that file?
• That in mind, some stated that it is not OK to choose any license you want if you are mixing data or just do some minor revisions, although you are the author following the ideas above. You have to copy the licenses if requested by the source file's license terms (share alike). Otherwise it's possible to change the modified file back again, so that it is alike the original file, but not having the same license. This would clearly dismiss the idea of all share-alike-ideas. This is even more important when we talk about svg-files. The elements of these files dont't lose quality or their original appearance while you modify the color or fade them out, etc. This makes svg more like a database, where every single element of this file could even isolated breach license terms. In consequence, it's really doubtful if mixing two or more svgs under different non-compatible licenses is feasible anyhow. On the other hand it's not really clear if a database-like svg is solely a database. The argument was brought up, that e.g. creating town's areas (areas that can be filled) from simple nods-only line (e.g. the raw borderline) is likely not an own work as it doesn't create a file that is - when prited or displayed - optical alike the source file. But from a database perspective one had to state that this operation may create dozens new line of code and changes the svg-code drastically.
• But here is the big BUT: it's widespread among cartographers to create new maps by adding new substantiel information to existing maps. These maps are combined, adjusted, used for checking the new map, etc. Creating maps from scratch doesn't seem what we call standing on the shoulders of giants, i.e. improving, correcting, evaluate data (incl. maps) to create the next step in cartography. This doesn't mean that it was allowed to copy just one mapwhile not adding substantial new information. Old-fashioned map-making (paper and ink based) came up with new fantastic works, that were not decomposable into its original sources. As this seems easy with svg-file copyright issues are brought up alot more these days. However, the guys from Kartenwerkstatt also stated that combinig works, copying single elements of other maps, modifiying and improving others' map elements, while putting substantial own effort into that, may create a new work. But this touches really unchartered legal law issues. No one can really say when one creates a new work. Courts in Germany don't seem to have a common oppinion or definition about this. Plus, it seems to be really difficult to say who is the copyright owner or some elements in my map. We talked about this issue mainly using the borderlines (main elemnt in such maps!) as an example. So who is the copyright owner? Is a border line a virtual line that is published by German authorities making it an offical work that may be copyright-free when it is used inh locator maps, hereby using border like intended by the authority, namely to demonstrate the borders between towns? Could a borderline be copyrighted when it's substantially generalized or slightly moved to uncover otherwise covered streets or rivers? If so, could a further step of generalization or other adjustments create again a new work? Is a border subject to copyright issues when we talk about century-old never changed borders that are already incorporated into maps from, let's say, the 17th century? Is the borderline maybe subject to copyright because it was digitalized by someone and published in an electronic database? Moreover, is it OK to use single elements that are part of that database that doesn't seem to be copyrighted when viewed isolated, while the whole database is commonly viewed as copyrighted? If you somehow argue that a new work is created, you are the new author that is perhaps authorized to cose any license he wants.

You see the thin legal line we are talking about? Think about: most maps in Wikipedia somehow incorporate border lines that are based on authorities' publications. So anwering this question may have really widespreading consequences to all maps of the wikipedia. To make it short: the whole issue is really unclear. In future I will pay more attention to these issues, though. So this seems to be the main result of our talk. Greetings from the land of the next soccer world champion.--TUBS 10:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Fieseler_Fi_103_sound.ogg

Hi i have a general question. to my knowledge, all copright questions here are about pictures, or "photo art" i cannot see anything in common between the maschine sound and a foto ! there is only another maschine (the recorder) needed to take the sound. no geneious needed, like when you operate a camera and arrange the items in a foto! where does the protection come from ? or is it just a prevention from german war acqusitions ?--Gonzosft (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)--Gonzosft (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Recording a sound, even an "ambient" one occurring independently of the recorder, still involves some creative choices in deciding what, when and where to record, how to position and adjust the recording equipment and how to cut and mix the final recording. This is not really that different from the level of creativity involved in, say, taking a photo of a landscape, and most jurisdictions, including the U.K., do recognize at least some form of copyright protection on both.

That said, while looking for references about this, I stumbled across COM:PD#United Kingdom, which claims that U.K. copyright for sound recordings only lasts 50 years from publication. Thus, if this recording was published in the U.K. before 1960 (or, possibly, if it remained unpublished until 1994 or 1995) its copyright would seem to have expired. However, if I'm reading the rules right, we would still need some evidence that it wasn't, in fact, first published sometime between 1960 and 1994. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

BMP

According to your Bot's stats we still got ~1000 bmp files on here. Quick searching for ".bmp" yields no results. Could you maybe make a list of those the next time you run the bot? cheers--DieBuche (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'd noticed it myself and was considering doing something about it. :) Here's a list from a few days ago to start with. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

...let me wikify that for you. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. There are heaps of copyvios & out of scope images in there right now. Do you thing it would be a good idea to convert the remaining to pngs later on?--DieBuche (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

For the ones with a .png suffix, yes. I've considered writing a script to do it, since its a simple but somewhat tedious process. For those with a .jp(e)g suffix, my approach in the past has been to just convert them to JPEGs with maximum quality and no chroma subsampling. However, now that we have working file redirects, it might be better to just change the suffix. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Btw, do you know where the acceptable mimetypes are defined? BMP as a extension is forbidden for upload, but the respective mimetype not Weird, I can't upload them, but some are as recent as 27 March 2010 (File:BMS_katte_1.jpg). Or has this been recently fixed?--DieBuche (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

See mw:Manual:$wgMimeTypeBlacklist. The whole extension/mime-type handling has long been a bit of a mess, though (partly, I think, because MIME type detection was originally an optional feature, and technically still remains so). It's possible that some recent commits related to the extensionless files branch might've tightened things up; if so, I should find out who did it and thank them. :) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I cleaned out most obvious copyvios & redid some bad crops, so the remaining ones should be clear to go. I guess "gifs" & "svgs" should be converted to pngs as well.--DieBuche (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sweet, just saw you started the script--DieBuche (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I think it's actually almost done, just a few more left. I should post the source once I'm done with it, but I'm still tweaking it as it runs. In fact, I just added a new feature to deal with the last few tricky cases: check out what it did to e.g. File:Ahavah Rabbah.pdf. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I mean in truth, all these BMP (PNG) images could be saved as PNG. Most are only 4bpp few pics get also bigger. Then again they would be smaller. But I think you made an good (the simple path) job whit this script. --Perhelion (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The way the latest version of my script works is that it converts files with .png or .jp(e)g suffixes in place, otherwise it converts to PNG and marks the original as superseded. Every BMP file can, in fact, be losslessly converted to PNG, and I've also found that converting to JPEG with maximum quality and no chroma subsampling produces few if any losses. I did also convert a few .gif files in place, where the number of distinct colors was low enough to allow it, but my script currently can't detect those automatically so I have to check for them separately. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

...and it's done! The few dozen or so BMP files that haven't been converted in place should all be marked as superseded by PNG versions. Next I'm going have CommonsDelinker replace them and then file a mass deletion request for them. Then we can hopefully declare Commons a BMP-free zone. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As promised, here's the code. I think it works too, though I kept tweaking it to the end so I make no guarantees. It's a self-contained Perl script using only LWP and a bunch of other standard modules. You may notice a resemblance with the MIMEStatBot code; I shamelessly cut-and-pasted much of it from that and various other scripts I'd written before. The script reads a bunch of filenames (without the "File:" prefix), either from the command line or from a file, and is capable of automatically downloading, converting, optimizing and reuploading them. However, it can also be used just for uploading previously downloaded and converted files, which is what I did for most of them. Yeah, it's ugly, but it did the job. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for the code! I already put it to use here. For some reason i had to change Line 92 to "return XMLin( $res->decoded_content() )" instead of "return XMLin( $res->content )"--DieBuche (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Maple

Hi, I had some problem with what you suggested here. If I save the image in eps format, the image results to be in black and white. Moreover when I import the image in Inskape and save it the dimension of the resulting file is huge (25 MB). I tryed to do the same using the other formats that Maple allows but that way Inkscape is not really converting the file in svg, in fact the resulting file is just calling the bmp file (what I obtained was this deleted file); I also tried to add the colours through Inkscape, but I'm not sure how to do it and Inskcape tends to crash everytime I try to do something. Can you please help me whith this problems? I'm not really familiar with Inkscape and I couldn't find in the internet the solution for my problems.--Sandro(bt) 16:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what the problem is — the instructions I gave worked for me when I used them to produce this version of the diagram. It might be a version difference: I'm using Maple 12.02, if your version is older that might be the cause. I tried Googling for maple eps export color and found these pages which suggest some possible workarounds you might try. I hope you'll get it working; if you do, please do tell me how you did it (or update the instructions yourself). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I use Maple 12 too, but I found out that what you wrote works only when using the new worksheat, but not whih the classic one (and I was using the classic one). Writing "plotsetup(ps,plotoutput=`Example.ps`,plotoptions=`portrait,noborder,color`);" it works with colour also with the classic worksheat (it saves the image directly in a file called "Example.ps"). I'll update the instructions in a couple of hours, now I have to go. Thanks for the help.--Sandro(bt) 14:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC) P.S. I don't know what these things work here in Commons, but I imagine Image:Legendre_constant.png might be deleted. Thanks again!

I can delete it for you, if you want. (It wasn't quite clear to me from you comment if you want it deleted or not, though.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

What I wanted to say is that I don't know if in Commons it is right or not to have two different formats of the same file (with one clearly worse than the other), but I'm sure you know whether is better to delete it or not, so I'll leave the decision to you, for me it's the same.

The current policy on Commons says that bitmap files replaced by vector versions should not be deleted without a deletion request. I believe this policy came about due to some rather bad calls by some users/admins in the past, like e.g. deleting high-resolution scanned drawings in favor of clumsily traced vector versions. Since most people won't bother filing deletion requests for superseded images, the end result is that they usually don't get deleted. I generally feel free to ignore this policy if the redundant file is unused, recently uploaded and its uploader requests its deletion, but not otherwise. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

About the file, I'm still having some troubles, because the resulting file is huge and Inkscape keeps crashing badly, so I gave up for today. As soon as I have some time, I'll check if that depends on the classic Worksheat or if depends just on Inkscape. --Sandro(bt) 23:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki:AjaxTranslation.js and Template:PD-USGov-NASA

See COM:VP#Template:PD-USGov-NASA. Looks like that template generates some format the script doesn't understand (my guess: two tables). How can this be fixed with the least effort? (Either the template or the script. Preferably the script, since I don't know how many other templates we have which generate something like that.) Lupo 13:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

commonist

Sieh mal hier Fingalo (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

User script fixconvert

I would test and use your servicing Ilmari_Karonen/fixconverttosvg.js, but I cant see anything. Can give a better description for this script? I think I understand Javascript good Perhelion/fixconverttosvg.js. Best regards --Perhelion (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't used or updated that script for a while, and it had apparently suffered some code rot. (In particular, it probably hadn't worked since the "Image" namespace was renamed to "File".) I made some updates to it, and it should work again now. Once you've updated your copy and cleared your cache, you should see a bunch of extra links under each image in Category:Images that should use vector graphics. Clicking the links will open an edit page and automatically add the chosen type to the {{Convert to SVG}} tag. (Tip: try middle-clicking to open the edit pages in new tabs.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It works! OK I'm willing to play (maybe extend) with it. Thank you. --Perhelion (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Now I've made few modification, I added 2 other templates for the category. I also mean, Ajax would be preferred for this script (I seen this elsewhere)? Best regards --Perhelion (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would generally be preferable to use the MediaWiki API for such scripted edits. The script is quite a bit older than the edit API, which is the main reason why it doesn't do that. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ilmari, ok :) can I try to implement this? Another (maybe interesting for you) clue, I've created an DropDown-Button for this template (SVG|with this list) (the ground script is from another guy) here [1] . Best regards --Perhelion (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

SVGs

Is there a way for you to search inside the svg-code in the database? I'd be interested in ones with the following string <image xlink:href=.* />. All these svgs reference a non-existing raster image & thus don't render. --DieBuche (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's possible without access to the Wikimedia servers. If we had an image dump we could grep that, but there currently aren't any, and the Toolserver doesn't have access to image data. I suppose one could write a bot to download all SVG images from Commons and check them one by one, but that doesn't really seem worth it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

uh, ok. Downloading 60GB of svgs isn't really worth it. I'll probably open a bug, either to ignore those references or to make the logs of rsvg available.--DieBuche (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I asked in IRC whether they keep the rsvg log, but they don't. At least now i thought of a better idea than downloading them all: If I have a list of all svgs, I could do curl curl -I "http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/thumb.php?f=Example.svg&width=200". The "-I" option only downloads the headers of the return, so resource consumption is kept to a minimum. If the return code is 500, I got a broken svg & put it's name into some text file, otherwise i proceed.--DieBuche (talk) 09:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I might suggest some further improvements:

• Don't use thumb.php; instead, use the prop=imageinfo API call to grab thumbnail URLs (in batches of 50, say).
• Use 120x120px thumbs; those are the ones used for category views etc., so they're likely to be already generated (unless broken).

—Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I implemented those suggestions, & my script has now checked all svgs from A-R. See User:DieBuche/BrokenSVG for a gallery of them (the top ones have been mostly fixed by now). For some reason though a number of Japanese County maps shows up, which first look fine, but refuse to render thumbs smaller than ca. 200px. For example see File:Funagata_town_Yamagata_prefecture_Japan.svg. I scour'ed the code & looks fine, but even after multiple purges I get thumb errors. Could you have a look at this, maybe you see what's the problem there.--DieBuche (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Help Infrogmation with closing a deletion request

Hello, since you're familiar with the user who opened the deletion request, I need help closing it. Admin Infrogmation closed four out of five of the deletion requests, but he says he does “usually tend to refrain from being the closing admin in deletion discussions I've already voted on.” (User_talk:Infrogmation#Move to close Stillwaterising's deletion requests). Would you please see his talk page and close the first of the five deletion requests? Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Replied on Infrogmation's talk page, since that's where the main discussion seems to be. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Images qui n'apparaissent pas

Salut, merci pour les images, mais j'en ai trouvé deux autres qui ne marchent pas File:Australian Open 2010 Quarterfinals Nadal Vs Murray 14.jpg et File:Melbourne Australian Open 2010 Fernando Gonzalez 10.jpg, pourrais tu également les corriger ?, merci d'avance--Euroman3 (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Pas de problème. :) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Various

I took a look at your script & I have to admit it's way cleaner and more sophisticated than mine. So I abandoned mine, and added the stuff my script could additionally do to yours. Things I changed:

• If skin is not vector use addToolLink instead
• add the status indicator & refresh it's message with the one from the i18n list in every step
• Only use appendtext or prependtext when saving, to avoid edit conflicts
• Add the possibility to define any tag which can be added to an image like this:

{  'label': 'No source',
   'tag': '{{subst:nsd}}',
   'talk_tag': '{\{subst:image source|1=%FILE%}}',
   'img_summary': 'File has no source',
    'talk_summary': '%FILE% does not have a source' }

• if tag contains %PARAMETER%, ask the user for it (Useful for adding templates like {{Superseded}} etc.)

Another thing, the broken thumbs: here is the script I used to check the SVGs. To be used on all images it has yet to be changed to use the API as a page generator; currently it only accepts a csv list.

--DieBuche (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, it seems I may not be able to run the thumb check script right away: I'll be going on a trip for about a week and will have only sporadic net access during that time. I'd thought I'd have time to set it running before I left, but I'm not so sure about that anymore. Anyway, if I don't manage to start it running now, I can take another look at it a week from now. Of course, it might be quicker if you just found someone else with a TS account to run it while I was away. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Request to delete an old image

Hi I have been working on improving the image "Coat of Arms of Nepal.svg" and I just uploaded the most recent version with important corrections at:

• Coat_of_Arms_of_Nepal.svg

And now the file at following address is redundant:

• ‎National_Emblem_of_Nepal.svg

I would greatly appreciate it if you could please delete the old version as soon as possible. Thanks for your prompt consideration. PraShree (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ilmari is away for a week, so I took the liberty to take the request. I merged the histories, so the new images now also contains the old one.--DieBuche (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Now, it's much clearer. PraShree (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Image qui n'apparait pas

Salut, c'est encore moi, désolé de te déranger une nouvelle fois mais une autre image n'apparait pas (File:Melbourne Australian Open 2010 Venus and Serena Chat.jpg), pourrais tu également corriger (en espérant que c'est la dernière), merci d'avance ;)--Euroman3 (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded it manually. (Je l'ai transferrée à la main.) Lupo 19:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Silent People

Please check the category Category: The Silent People according to Finnish copyright law. Thank you. Please reply on my page. --Hapesoft (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of unused Popular Science Monthly images

Hello Ilmari,

I noticed your name on the mass deletion requests page, and I am asking for your advice on how to proceed with the following.

All my current activities are on English Wikisource, editing and proofreading Wikisource:Wikisource:WikiProject Popular Science Monthly. Initially, I uploaded yellowed low resolution images directly from the .djvu files for the first 10 volumes (about 1,100 images of the total of ~9,000), which I later replaced with high quality grayscale, converted from Internet Archive .JP2 files.

Now, I need to delete these yellow images which are not used. The images are organized in 92 sub-categories under the Category:Popular Science Monthly illustrations, and the deletions are displayed and matched with their replacements on the talk page of each of the first 10 volumes LIKE HERE. Old image names begin with the letters TPSMV and they appear after the new names, which begin with PSM. Subsequent volumes between 11 and 92, have no old images.

My problem is the amount of work and time it takes to place the {{delete}} template in each of the 1,1000 image pages. Isn't there a quicker way to delete them, based on my matched organization? Thanks, Ineuw talk page on en.ws 01:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that tagging 1,100 images is not really practical, nor would it be sensible use of server resources even if someone were willing to run a bot to do it. My suggestion would be to file a mass deletion request as per COM:MASSDEL, except for the file tagging part, and instead to post notices about it widely enough to hopefully attract the attention of any interested editors. (I'd suggest a brief post on COM:VP as well as on any relevant talk pages; if your nomination would include any entire categories, you could tag those with {{Delete}}.) In the DR, state clearly which images you want deleted and why; in particular, making it clear that you are the original uploader and that the images are all unused ought to reduce the potential for controversy.

That said, I can immediately predict at least one potential objection: the new images seem to omit some captions present in the originals, and these captions don't (always?) seem to be given in the image description either. For example, compare File:TPSMV1P477 Fig 2.jpg with File:PSM V01 D477 Eye structure.jpg: without the caption, it's hard to make sense of the image. Of course, the source link would help, at least if it pointed to the correct page (477 instead of 473). Still, I'd suggest trying to fix as much of such issues as you can before filing the DR.

Once the DR is closed, I'd be happy to carry out the deletions, or you could ask on COM:AN if someone else with a handy mass deletion script would like to do it. (I don't think I've written one for myself yet, but my mass undeletion script shouldn't need much modification to do it.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

OT: Nice to see you're back. btw the ajaxdelete is now globally enabled ;)--DieBuche (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool! :) I'll probably be around rather on and off for this month... I've been home for this week but haven't really had time for any Wikimedia stuff. Now I'm going away again, hopefully I'll be back next week. I can take another look at what's been happening then. :) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello again Ilmari, and many thanks for your advice, it's been very enlightening and helpful. Am mindful of, and sympathetic to, the workload of administrators who are after all volunteers.

To elaborate on the points you raised, the captions removal was requested by Wikisource administrators because of aesthetics and the requirement of proofreading the captions, demonstrated on this image HERE. I am also aware of the occasional errors of the page number references, which were entirely due to my inattention. I now realize that these are obstacles in achieving speedy deletions.

I can provide a detailed explanation and enlist the Wikisource administrators to comment on the matter, but since every image must be checked, I might as well place the {{duplicate}} template on each image instead? It will be long drawn out process but I feel responsible for the initial mess, and maybe I should look at it as a learning experience of what not to do? Your opinion is most valued. Ineuw talk page on en.ws 02:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Dunno... if you want to tag all the images, I'm not stopping you, but I don't really see a pressing need for it either. (Anyway, if you can provide a list of new/original file number pairs in a machine-readable format (like CSV), then it probably wouldn't be hard to have a bot add the tags.) The page numbers and so on should be fixed in any case; since I see no pressing need to delete the old images right this minute, I'd suggest just taking however long it takes to get the new ones all tidied up before filing the DR. (Actually, it occurs to me that, if the page numbers and captions are good on Wikisource, it might be possible to have a bot pull them from there. But as I wrote above, I won't have time to look at that until next week at the soonest.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your help. I came across User:Abigor from Metawiki and he'll take care of the deletions after I replaced all the old images. I still have a few more to deal with. Again my thanks and don't waste your time on it.Ineuw talk page on en.ws 14:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Ilmari Karonen/archives!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image:Greek Royal Arms Small.svg was uncategorized on 9 August 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Image:Digi.logo.jpeg was uncategorized on 9 August 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Image:CumberlandObelisk.ogg was uncategorized on 27 September 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Liver_1.jpg

File:Liver_1.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!

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Trig-addition-laws.svg

Thanks you for a speedy fix. I hadn't used flowed text, but I HAD used rotated text, which I guess was implemented as flowed. Thank you very much. JamesCrook (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Screentone manga drawing

Thanks, I had found this image and she also did not show the effect of screentone.Hyju (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Edwardsig.svg

File:Edwardsig.svg 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!

DrKiernan (talk) 09:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

File tagging File:Księstwo Oświęcimskie (herb XIV wiek).gif

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Księstwo Oświęcimskie (herb XIV wiek).gif. 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:Księstwo Oświęcimskie (herb XIV wiek).gif]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

JDavid (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Bulgaria Simeon I (893-927).svg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot

Ask for help for to repear swiss SVG coat of arms

Dear friend: I saw that you repeared the coat of arm of Uznach (canton of St. Gallen, Switerzland). Thank you very much. I acutally do not have a working SVG-compiler. Therefore I need help from sombody like you: A big part of the coat of arms of the Swiss Canton of Graubünden have all the same problem as the file you just repeared. You can find the not working files here: . This one has first priority for me personnally (because it is also part of a template): File:Bergün Bravuogn wappen.svg. If you have time, I thank you very much for your help! With best wishes DidiWeidmann (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

MIMEStatBot table format

Please see Commons:Village_pump#Table_sorting_issue. --  Docu  at 13:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia favicon in Firefox on KDE.png

You uploaded a long time ago this picture: File:Wikipedia favicon in Firefox on KDE.png. Isn't the description incorrect? I think this is not "a Firefox build" - it should be a "Minefield build" (this question occured for the peer review at the english Favicon article...) Mabdul (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a Firefox screenshot, from whatever release (K)Ubuntu shipped at the time I took it. The screenshot originally included the official Firefox logo in the upper left corner, but I replaced it with an LGPL logo just in case. Anyway, the "source" and "author" fields in the image description contain a fairly detailed description of the origin and licensing status of the various parts of the image. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I reread the description page. Seems OK for me now. Thanks for the clarification. But shouldn't the image be licensed under the MPL, too? (similar to the file File:Firefox 3.6 Screenshot.png) Mabdul (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm... not sure. Some of the icons are LGPL only, and I'm not sure if that license is permissive enough to allow redistribution under the MPL in such a case. Of course, one could argue that the icons are merely aggregated with the rest of the screenshot (which is the rationale for allowing the juxtaposition of CC-BY-SA/GFDL text with GPL interface elements in such screenshots to begin with), but then I'd have different parts of the screenshot under three different licenses, which gets kind of complicated.

However, just in case, let me hereby state that I'll release all my original contributions to that image into the public domain and permit its distribution under any terms compatible with the applicable licenses granted by any other authors whose work is included in it. So if you think that image or any part of it is otherwise legal to distribute under the MPL (or any other license), you (and everyone else) have my permission to do so. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's all that I wanted to know. Thanks. I also do think that this license will be enough, but I'm really not an expert on these license - things... Mabdul (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Gombrowicz2.jpg

File:Gombrowicz2.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!

FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Mikeclouds.png

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Mikeclouds.png, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Mikeclouds.png]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Avron (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Vertu headset.jpg

File:Vertu headset.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

High Contrast (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

File:DmpdJuly2010.jpg

Hi Ilmari, so it's been a week since the copyvio image at Commons:Help_desk#BLP_subject_is_upset_about_unflattering_photo has been allowed to remain active and in use. According to WP:OTRS, an image can be uploaded to Commons once permission has been granted from the photographer(s) and the OTRS pending tag is to be used when the declaration of permission is sent to OTRS. Requesting permission and not receiving it is proof enough that this image is an absolute violation of copyright law and is being used illegally. I see no further reason why it should be allowed to remain on Commons any longer. I hate to be that "evil" guy who seems bent on removing this image, but I happened to notice it was a copyvio, it was removed diligently, and we've allowed it a week of grace period, and it's still a copyvio image, and an admin at en.wikipedia is still (disappointingly) allowing it to be used on a GA article. I'm only following both Wikipedia guidelines and image use law. So, the image should be removed, please. I will be tagging it {{Copyvio}} at any rate. Thank you. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 20:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons:MIME type statistics

Nice stats. Once in a while I have a look at them. I just made a diff with an older versions and noticed that some disappeared ;)

Not that it's crucial, but an interesting number to compare could be the average file size. As the bot already outputs files and bytes, it might be easy to add. --  Docu  at 07:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons:User Scripts

Hello Ilmari, recently I created Commons:User Scripts to have a centralised place to talk about JS issues. Currently it is empty but I hope you will participate and use it. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 19:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Casagrande Laboratory

Terve,

Marco Casagranden ja Casagrande Laboratoryn kuvien jakoon on lupa. Permission: marco@clab.fi / +358.50.3089166

Ilmaisten lehtien kannet on poistettu, kun ei ole uskottu, että sama ryhmä on painanut lehtiä eri puolilla maailmaa ja eri kielillä - suomi, englanti, kiina. Näiden julkaiusu on lupa Permission: marco@clab.fi / +358.50.3089166

This is the front page of a free newspaper by Casagrande Laboratory for Helsinki Festival 2004.

All these newspapers in different languages are a series of c-lab free publications for art and architecture venues in different places of the world:

HUMAN, London Architecture Biennial 2004 IHMINEN, Helsinki Festival 2004 PePo, Taiwan Design Expo 2005 Il Uomo, Venice Architecture Biennial 2006 Cicada, SZHK Biennial 2009 Anarchist Gardener, Ruin Academy 2010

Permission for publication: marco@clab.fi / +358.50.3089166

De-adminship warning

Dear Ilmari Karonen/archives/2. I am writing to you to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you Trijnstel (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Le Voyage dans la lune 2.jpg

File:Le Voyage dans la lune 2.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!

InverseHypercube 21:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Documentation for gadget authors

I saw you had done some work on a few gadgets. We are trying to start a library for gadget authors to use. Please check it out and post any questions or comments there. -- ☠MarkAHershberger☢(talk)☣ 17:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Full star image changed and now does not match rest

this page shows the star in context http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Star_symbol this is the like to the page that is wrong http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Star*.svg#filelinks

the star was replaced by a newer version but it is markedly different to the rest of the images. Can the old one be made the current again or all the other stars be made to the new method? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.40.199 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 18. July 2012‎ (UTC)

Either suggestion seems sensible, but after thinking about this for a while, I decided to go with the latter option and replaced the empty and fractional star images. I'm not completely happy with the appearance of the new versions, but I do have to admit that the SVG code is cleaner, and the "new" full star has been around long enough and used widely enough that I felt it was better left alone. --Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

De-adminship warning

Dear Ilmari Karonen/archives/2. I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you Trijnstel_talk 23:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

MIMEStatBot improvements

I'd like to stop pseudo-manually updating my report User:Dispenser/Wrong Extension and you're bot has an overlapping report. These changes needed for assimilation

• The runtime can be shorten by using a temporary table and reusing it for both reports
• .oga and .ogv should only dedicated to img_media_type AUDIO and VIDEO respectively
• .xcf is a supported format on Common
• Related discussion at Commons:Bots/Work requests/Archive 7#Fix file extensions

Dispenser (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

We could perhaps combine these tools in a multi-maintainer project; I actually applied for one for MIMEStatBot some time ago, but never got around to moving the code over. (Not sure if that would make sense given the current status of the Toolserver, though; I haven't been really following that stuff very closely, but I know there at least used to be a lot of talk about transitioning to the WMF Tool Labs in the future.)

I deliberately wrote MIMEStatBot to be fairly policy-agnostic: it doesn't really know or care which MIME types are allowed on Commons, it just counts them all and then compiles a list of any files with unusual types, where "unusual" is defined by an arbitrary cutoff of 500 files or fewer. It also doesn't currently care about file extensions at all, although that could indeed be changed fairly easily.

I suppose it would be possible to add a simple configuration file that defines any "expected" MIME type / media type / extension combinations, and have the bot report anything not found in it. That file would need to be update whenever Commons policy (or technical restrictions) on file formats changes, but that's not really too frequent. (I think that major changes over the lifetime of MIMEStatBot have been the introduction of the .djvu and .webm formats.)

Anyway, a big problem with MIMEStatBot is that it's already pushing the Toolserver query runtime limits pretty hard; yesterday's run got killed before it managed to complete. In theory, it should be possible to rewrite the code to maintain running statistics and update them based on upload and deletion logs, but in practice that would likely get out of sync with reality pretty quickly. (For example, purging a file can change its MIME type if the detection code has changed in the mean time, and leaves no trace in the logs; also, MediaWiki's logging works on a best effort basis, and while it's rare, it's quite possible for a file to get uploaded or deleted without leaving a log entry.) Any plans to add functionality would need to take into account the fact that even the existing functionality barely works any more. :(

--Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)