Got an opinion here? 1912 painting, tagged as non-free. I didn't notice that it was from 1912, so I tagged it for reduction when I saw it, but noticed the year when I saw the reduction on my watchlist. Currently held at a museum in Japan, and the museum tells that the painting was exhibited in Paris in 1912.[1] This would make it {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, wouldn't it? I won't revert this myself as that would be against the copyright law of my own country, but I suspect that the current tag is wrong.
For what it is worth, the Japanese museum's claim that it is protected by copyright appears to be correct despite Japan being a 50 years p.m.a. country. After WWII, Japan was accused for violating the Berne Convention and other copyright treaties, so the Allies got a clause in the San Francisco Treaty saying that French pre-war works get a wartime copyright extension of 3794 days in Japan, and the painter died less than 50 years and 3794 days ago. For details about the wartime extensions, see ja:戦時加算 (著作権法)#日本の戦時加算 (no translation available, only affects foreign works so doesn't affect Commons in any way). --Stefan2 (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Derrick, I see that you are (one of) the creator(s) of the file "QWERTY keyboard alt code 161 demonstration.gif". I like the animation, but I think using the code 1-6-1 is not the best-most possible choice for an example, as the actually resulting code very much depends on the currently active codepage. It is in fact "í" in codepage 437 and 850 (and a few more), but not, for example, in codepage 861, 863, 866, 869 and many others (there are hundreds of codepages). User of these other codepages may therefore be confused by the example.
I suggest to use a codepoint below 128 in the example, since only very few codepoints in the 7-bit ASCII set are variable depending on locale and environment. In my example in the Alt code article, I chosed the '*' symbol (codepoint 42 decimal or 2A hex) for this reason.
Would you have fun to create an animated GIF using the code 4-2 instead of 1-6-1, so that we could use it in the Alt code article instead of the current GIF? Thanks and greetings,
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see the problem. Use of an ASCII character seems a bit silly, since they can mostly be typed on a normal keyboard, but it would still demonstrate it adequately. I might go for 126 (~) instead just to make it 3 numbers, since any real use requires at least 3 numbers. I may need a bit of time to get around to this. Dcoetzee17:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Metrolyrics legality question
Hi, Derrick. :) I noticed a question at the help page regarding Metrolyrics and went in to clarify that they are legal, but the question has raised some concerns for me that they may not be all legal -- it looks like at least 30% may not be. Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Licensed_lyrics_provider.3F and see what you think? --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can refer you to Rehevkor's talk page, where there is a great discussion about it. I am too, not so sure MetroLyrics is fully licensed. However, Qtrax, on the other hand, seem to be 100% legal
In our article should we try to link another wikipage every time the topic word is used or just the first time? For example, Tellico Dam comes up a few times in the article. Should I try to add the double brackets every time?
I was wondering how to make a different word link to a page then the actual name of the Wikipedia page that the author created. What I mean is the name of the page that I am trying to link into is "Safe Drinking Water Act" I want to link SDWA to that page. Is that possible?
Parathin81 (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, can you clarify, do you mean I need to merge by copying and pasting the information into the existing page? If so, my classmate already copy and pasted the article from my sandbox to the main page. Thanks. StacyPF (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipediaadventure
Thanks for this tool! - I've been playing around a bit and will continue later...
Suggestion for improvement: When telling people to make sure that their e-mail address is enabled on the wiki, add a link where they can find out how to enable their e-mail address if needed. Beat Estermann (talk) 11:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I was playing with your tool to get a feel for it as I'm working on becoming a "reviewer" and I wanted to be familiar with all of the tools that may help me in that task. While doing so, I noticed a minor bug whereas although the tool recognizes positive bit changes greater than the threshold, it doesn't seem to recognize negative changes greater than the threshold for minor/major changes. Try running my user name in the tool and set the minor/major threshold to say 500 bytes. Now, navigate to the end of the list, and changes of -800 or -1000 are not listed as major. I can DL the wikitext of the report or make a .pdf printout or take a screenshot and save it in almost any picture format if you need to see what I am seeing. Thanks! Technical 13 (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is intentional. The tool is intended primarily to identify major prose contributions for the purpose of finding copyright violations - large deletions do not count as they cannot introduce copyright violations. Dcoetzee22:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, even though I'm not convinced that is entirely true. I've seen spambots delete a page and replace it with small copyright violation. Technical 13 (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Module:ConvertNumeric
nice work. could you make this work for cardinal numbers as well? currently {{number to word}} has a limit on the number size, so I had to specify the cardinal by hand in 9814072356 (number). it seems like all you would need is the same code, but without the ordinal suffix. Frietjes (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I tried to add the article banner to the TVA v. Hill wikipage but it doesn't seem to show. Did I write it incorrectly?
Totranm (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Duplication Detector output not readable when its ASCII
Hello, thank you for Duplication Detector, is exactly what i'm looking for, but when used with non-latin/ascii (tried using it on arabic text) the output is not really useful! thanks for your great effort. Cheers. anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.236.188.68 (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wiknic 2013 Sunday, June 23rd · 12:34pm · Lake Merritt, Oakland Theme: Hyperlocal list-making
Lake Merritt Wild Duck Refuge (Oakland, CA)
This year's 2013 SF Wiknik will be held at Lake Merritt, next to Children's Fairyland in Oakland. This event will be co-attended by people from the hyperlocal Oakland Wiki. May crosspollination of ideas and merriment abound!
Location and Directions
Location: The grassy area due south of Children's Fairyland (here) (Oakland Wiki)
Maker Faire 2013, Sat/Sun May 18-19, San Mateo -- there will have a booth about Wikimedia, and we need volunteers to talk to the public and ideas for the booth -- see the wiki page to sign up!
Edit-a-Thon 5, Sat May 25, 10-2pm, WMF offices in San Francisco -- this will be a casual edit-a-thon open to both experienced and new editors alike! Please sign up if on the wiki page if you can make it so we know how much food to get.
The Wikipedia Adventure: Text Mockup (feedback welcome!)
Hi TWA folks!
It's been a long time since we worked on The Wikipedia Adventure together, but this spring I proposed the game for an Individual Engagement Grant and it was accepted :)
I spent the last two months refining the script and getting ready to build the game using Guided tours. I am working with an amazing designer and getting expert curation tips from the Grant program leader.
I'd love to have your feedback on it, before I get started with the build. I would love it if you would leave any thoughts, tips, comments, recommendations, suggestions, ideas, or concerns, at WP:TWA/Feedback.
Hi Ocaasi, sorry for not getting back to you. Glad to hear you got the IEG. I'm sure this'll be really helpful. I'm a bit busy but I'll provide feedback when a more substantial playable prototype is available. Thanks! Dcoetzee19:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know Cmach7's patterns well enough to recognise them, so I'm reluctant to do so, but I asked Wizardman who is to reblock. Dcoetzee23:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Next time do me the courtesy of consulting with me before undoing an action I've taken, not giving me a heads up after. No matter what you may think of my block, god knows there was no urgency to unblocking the user to justify bypassing that step.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is conventional practice to revert out-of-process blocks with no prior notification. We do not unilaterally block users for incompetence. Anyone is free to reblock (21sayriuo) as a sock if they believe that they are a clear sock of Cmach7. Dcoetzee00:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I can't speak as to "conventional practice". You've been here longer than I have. In this instance, the practice is misguided. Although in the context of a block review, policy says: "Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter." And there was nothing "out-of-process" about the block. You just disagree with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And now responding to your added comment, I did not block for incompetence. The esssence of the block was disruption, and it was based on either vandalism or incompetence (and in the back of my mind but not stated possible sock puppetry but I had no idea of whom). The persistent disruption warranted the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the user's contribution history prior to the unblock and they displayed no evidence whatsoever of malicious intent - newbies are often unintentionally disruptive, and referring to their activity as "vandalism" is extremely problematic.Dcoetzee00:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite disappointed by this line of thinking. How was this block out of process? We block WP:DUCK socks without warning by the hour, only because if we waited for the SPI, the encyclopedia might be in a shambles by the time we got around to blocking.
The unblock was really bad; it left us in a state where we can't block the WP:DUCK sock of a known LTA because it would be wheel warring, even if we have it Confirmed (which DQ did a few minutes ago). When dealing with such socks, some admins have more knowledge about particular recurring vandals / trolls; if you had discussed this with the blocking admin you might have found out that this LTA has created a dozen socks, all doing the same thing. Or if you had bothered to check the sock category, the SPI, or looked to see that the account was an obvious sleeper, or complaining that DQ blocked his IP.
Hasty unblocks are not a good thing to do (I also noticed your adjusting the block settings of ProWikiD, which thankfully you reverted). To be frank, the only reason I'm not making a bigger stink about this is because I generally do have a lot of respect for you as an admin and an editor, but this was a really bad call. --Rschen775400:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The blocking admin apparently had no idea the user was a sock and only found this out just now. The SPI notice on his user page provided no evidence that the user was a sock, and I did contact the user who placed the sock notice right away. The unblock was intended to be temporary pending evidence of sockpuppeting, which has now been provided. In any case I now see that unblocking potential sockpuppets even temporarily may pose a threat and so will refrain from doing so in the future withour prior discussion. Dcoetzee00:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Although you are correct about my knowledge before the block, there's nothing else you say that makes any sense to me. An editor doesn't have to edit with "malice" to be blocked. There was ample evidence for the block, both in the actual contributions and now in the deleted contributions. They not only added themselves to the RfA, but when reverted by Black Kite, they reverted back. Everything about this editor cried out troll, disruptive, whatever name you want to apply to it. As for the sock notice, you could have easily blocked the user at that point even though Wizardman neglected to do so. We don't need an SPI to block an editor for socking. And I couldn't re-block with wheel warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could not reblock the user because I don't have the knowledge to do so. I am not experienced enough to recognize Cmach7's editing patterns, and have in fact never heard of them before. That is why I asked others here to do so instead. I also didn't have the experience you have that allows you to see behavior that appears innocent but is indicative of a potentially malicious user. I should have consulted with you first for an explanation, and I will refrain from reverting any blocks or unblocks in the future without prior discussion with the involved administrator(s). I apologize for my poor judgement. Dcoetzee00:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Derrick. :) I just wanted to check and see what was up with LyricsBot and if it was doing anything about lyric links that are likely not authorized. I looked at some of the articles, and am not sure if the lyrics are official:
This is just the last five songs that were linked up by LyricsBot, and all of them look like potential Linkvios. :( Unless Metrolyrics has changed the practice you discovered here? --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for following up with me - LyricsBot isn't running right now, but I need to write up a script to go back through the articles with MetroLyrics links and remove all the ones to community editable pages. I've been procrastinating on this but I'll get to it soon. :-) Dcoetzee20:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid there has been some kind of change - MetroLyrics has stopped placing the Gracenote logo on any of their lyrics, and have added a "Submit Corrections" link. See e.g. this page where the user comments indicate that an "approved by Gracenote" notice used to be present but no longer is. There is some code in the HTML indicating it's from Gracenote ("
") but I'm not sure what it means. I'm honestly inclined at this point to abandon MetroLyrics and go with LyricWiki instead, but that will be a bit of a massive undertaking. I'll email MetroLyrics first. Dcoetzee23:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I followed up with MetroLyrics and apparently they're working on the site and transitioning to using LyricFind's logo. They assured me that any user corrections submitted for licensed content would be routed to the licensor and not posted without screening. They also said the logo should be up again now but it's not - I wrote them back again and I'll see what they say. Dcoetzee01:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if this is the wrong procedure (id est, not creating a new section, just appending to a relevant section) but I noticed an erroneous LyricsBot link in Under Pressure. Metrolyrics has scrubbed all lyrics for this song from the cited link. I am removing the link. Feel free to undo my edit if I was in error. (Based on what you've said above, and the further degradation of their site, perhaps it might be time to wipe Metrolyrics external links from song pages?) Obviously, I'm very new here. I hope I have not transgressed. Thank you! Renbear67 (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Renbear, please feel free to remove any MetroLyrics links that are incorrect. @Moonriddengirl: I've afraid I've been procrastinating on this, but I received email in July verifying that, as of the end of July, all lyrics that are licensed from LyricFind now feature a prominent LyricFind "LF" logo (see e.g. [2]). They also assured me that any corrections they accept will be delivered to the licensor, and not merely republished without any scrutiny. That's all the information I need to correctly filter the links - just need a little bot work to clean things up. Dcoetzee19:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Followed Users
Hi
First of all, many thanks for the script, which I have been using since you first created it. Very useful indeed.
I'm sure this is probably related to the current up/down/working/not-working problems with toolserver, but just in case it isn't I'll give you the error I've got for the last 48 hours: "Can't connect to MySQL server on 'enwiki-p.userdb.toolserver.org' (146)".
It seems a bit absurd that I had to stick a template twice the size of the article in response to plagiarism. Is it possible for me to just edit the wording of the text as the edit was made 4 years ago from an inactive contributor. Despite its inability to be reverted, I can very easily reword the two sentences of plagiarized text and cite the source. If I do that, may I also remove the template?
The article in question is titled Bolo knife.
ThanksGuyHimGuy (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced it with a related template which is smaller. Feel free to rewrite the affected material and then remove the template. Dcoetzee20:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice job you did with Module:ConvertNumeric which you used to implement {{spellnum}}. I'm wondering if you would be willing to extend it to include fractions (which was planned for the old template). For example, {{spellnum|1+1/2}} would give "one and a half" rather than "one point five".
The motivation is that the {{convert}} series of templates accept fractions with input like "6+3/8" ("-6-3/8" if negative). For example:
There is also {{convert/spell}} which spells the numbers as words. The convert/spell template handles a few anticipated fractions as special cases, using spellnum for the rest. A completely general solution is not needed—I think sixteenths, eighths, sixths, fifths, quarters, thirds, and halves (I'd have to check that).
In practice, there is very little need to spell fractions, so I hesitate to suggest this feature. However, an editor is requesting "one and a half" at convert's talk.
I'm a little concerned about ambiguity of the syntax. Arithmetic expressions are evaluated by default, and I'm not sure what somebody would do if they really wanted "one point five" for "1+1/2". The more natural syntax ("1 1/2") would also avoid this ambiguity. Is there any reason not to do it this way? Dcoetzee01:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do not need {{spellnum}}, so its syntax is not relevant. I am writing Module:Convert (see its talk page for an overview). It is nearly finished, but there are some extras such as {{convert/spell}}. I plan to add the ability to spell the result with an extra "spell" parameter, so {{convert|1+1/2|mi|km|spell=in}} would output "one and a half miles (2.4 km)". If you would be prepared to include fractions, I would ask that you also include a new version of _numeral_to_english in the public interface (the p table). Module:Convert currently handles inputs like "1+1/2":
{{convert/sandboxlua|1+1/2|mi|km}} → 1+1⁄2 miles (2.4 km)
The module parses the input into three values: whole, numerator, denominator (whole is nil for inputs like "1/2"). I would call the new ConvertNumeric function, passing those three values, and a sign, as well as all the other parameters. If that appeals (bearing in mind that it is not commonly used), we would need to agree on the interface details. Template spellnum could use the syntax you suggest. What do you think? Johnuniq (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have implemented a limited set of fractions (enough for Module:Convert). After realizing that Module:ConvertNumeric is transcluded on 785 pages, I thought it best to create a sandbox, see: Module:ConvertNumeric/sandbox and Module:ConvertNumeric/sandbox/testcases. I'm still mucking around, but will soon be happy with what's in the sandbox and will copy it to ConvertNumeric. I avoided the issue of a suitable syntax for input to {{spellnum}} by using named parameters: numerator and denominator. That is all I needed, and the issue of parsing an input number like "1 1/2" can be considered later, if wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was away for a while - I'm going to give you a free pass to modify it as you see fit because I won't have a lot of time to work on it, but your solution sounds like a suitable way to extend it without breaking anything. Please enter testcases on the testcases page to handle the new parameters, or ask me if you're not sure how to do that. Thanks! Dcoetzee02:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LyricsBot and instrumental songs
Hi, I removed the link to the lyrics of the instrumental song The Brazilian that LyricsBot added. According to this thread this happened for at least another instrumental song. Would it make sense for the bot to identify and skip instrumental songs? Maybe a good clue for the bot could be whether the lyrics consist only of the text instrumental + some non-word characters. --Mvinyals (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's a good idea. I know "The Brazilian" and I understand that it's not useful to link lyrics for it (to be honest I don't comprehend why their site even lists such songs). Unfortunately the way instrumental songs are indicated is somewhat inconsistent, but I'll take a look at it when I go to add more links. Dcoetzee01:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unsalt
Could you unsalt List of anime? I am working on making it into a "list of lists" type article which will integrate other lists and the new Table of years in anime which I've begun constructing for "Year in anime" articles. I want to use the existing lists and integrate them in a better fashion then what currently passes at Anime. Some of the feedback requests have been about specific anime lists.[3] Given the history and the gap in time, I think I can handle this easily. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay you seem to have something specific and workable in mind for this that addresses the concerns at the previous deletion discussion. I'm unsalting for now. Please create it right away. Dcoetzee04:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Dcoetzee. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.
We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.
Thank you for telling me about the Philadelphia Inquirer article about me. How did you come across it, and so early in the day in California? --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One small goal on the ZFC article has been to keep all the formal axioms sourced from the same book (I think it is using Kunen's book right now). The choice of book doesn't matter so much, but having a complete set of axioms from the same place is important, because axioms differ from one book to another. If we mix and match axioms from different places, then it would require proof that the axioms we state are the same strength as other axiomatizations of ZFC, but our article is ill-suited to having that sort of proof. So just sourcing them all from one place avoids that problem. The informal descriptions of the axioms are original to our articles; just the formal statements of the axioms are taken from Kunen. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I only changed one formal definition, feel free to revert that. It was just making the axiom a little bit more difficult to explain succinctly but that's not a big deal. Dcoetzee12:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
Thanks for your message, the image has copyrighted materials i.e the album which was playing. But the screenshot has been changed as an user uploaded a new one with only visualization.Himanis Das|Talk09:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Data for training Bayesian Spam Filter
Hi Dcoetzee
I am making a Bayesian Spam Filter, I need some spam content to train the database. I want the content of revisions that were deleted, and labelled as spam. 5000 such articles should suffice. Namespace wikipedia.
I was having problem to get the live articles too. When I select action query, "list=livepages" no such option is show.
Does "list=allpages" means live pages. And I saw no prop action to get the contents. When I generated the request I only got the page ids, and title.
How can I get the live pages for ham
Anubhav iitr (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bubba73, I gave it "category=no" which is what I usually do. Is this sufficient or should I put <pre> around it? Thanks! Dcoetzee23:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is en.literateprograms.org okay? I just tried logging in to it for the first time in months and got a server error. I was still able to browse anonymously so I took a look at Recent Changes and from what I can see there are no changes after 18th June 2013. Just curious. -- Derek Ross | Talk06:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Derek, I've fixed the Asirra extension which was causing the 500 on the login page. You should be able to log in again now. Sorry for the slow response, and thanks for letting me know. I also need to finish the license migration which is the next order of business. :-) Dcoetzee02:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On 17 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Fox (song), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Ylvis were surprised by the international success of their song "The Fox," which was intended only to target their Norwegian audience? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Fox (song). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
If I recall correctly, feedback was disabled because of a lot of nonsense (or, in some cases, obscene) feedback. I hope you're watching the feedback closely, and are prepared to reverse your decision if necessary. — Arthur Rubin(talk)09:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is regularly reviewed by reviewers including myself and inappropriate feedback is rapidly marked as such. Common small integers are studied throughout lower schools and are vital to get reader feedback on to improve accessibility. Dcoetzee09:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't recall the feedback on those specific articles, but, when I was watching feedback (and I don't remember how to do so, any more), in many cases, the inappropriate feedback frequently needed to be deleted (or even suppressed), not just marked as inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin(talk)09:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been unable to get the Contribution Surveyor to run for the last couple of days - tried on two accounts, including one that according to a note on my talk page could be checked last week. This is kind of a critical tool...well, okay, a nigh indispensable tool for CCI. Would it be possible for you to take a look and see if you can figure out what's going on? I've been wondering for a bit if it's necessary to transfer it to wikitech:Nova Resource:Tools...or if that's fully functional or if it would work there. I thought I'd bring it up. :) In any event, if you can help get CCI operable again, it would be tremendously appreciated! --Moonriddengirl(talk)10:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear. :( I haven't been able to get it to work since leaving this note. Now it says, "User 'dcoetzee' has exceeded the 'max_user_connections' resource (current value: 15)" Any chance you can help? CCI really needs this tool. Sorry to pester you. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay! I've been procrastinating. I'm investigating it but it may not be simple to resolve - there may have been database changes and I need to update my queries, or a Toolserver issue that I can't resolve on my own. I'll update here when I know more. Dcoetzee22:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the indexes on the revision table are missing or malfunctioning. Even a simple query like the following hangs: "SELECT rev_id from revision WHERE rev_user=16120261 LIMIT 1;". This is outside of my power to fix. There is very limited support for Toolserver these days, so I may need to migrate to Tool Labs. I do have an account there but haven't done much with it yet. I'll see what I can do. Dcoetzee01:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bestowed upon you in reflection of the fact that you do. Pretty much every time I work on the copyright problems board, I am reminded of it. Thank you for taking the time to help once again. :) Moonriddengirl(talk)10:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you uploaded Vincent Van Gogh's marvelous piece The Bedroom through Google Art Project. I have a couple of paintings in mind that I would like to upload from the project to commons (For example: [5] and [6]). Can you explain the process on how to do it? I would love to learn. Thanks in advance. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dcoetzee. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Red Jacket, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Hicks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It can't be uploaded to Commons because it might not be PD in its source country (the author could easily have lived until 1943, which would mean it's in copyright in Turkey). It can probably be uploaded to English Wikipedia with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} but I have a lot of works to take care of on Commons before I get to those. Dcoetzee04:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Dcoetzee. Going back about a year or more, I noticed you (that is, LyricsBot) adding external links to MetroLyrics pages in song articles. Some time later, you seemed to be removing them due to a licensing issue, but more recently if I'm not mistaken, you've been adding the links again. (Apologies if I'm wrong about that, but I've seen a couple of things that make me think the policy might have swung back towards inclusion.)
So can I ask, is it okay to carry MetroLyrics as an external link in song articles? I'd like to include them (or an equivalent) if possible. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey no probs, Dcoetzee. Your non-response was probably the best thing, because it got me to actually read one of the relevant edit comments – where you'd explained the LF situation loud and clear, of course(!). Love your work – cheers, JG66 (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dcoetzee! The first Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, February 1, 2014 in San Francisco.
Any editors interested in the intersection of feminism and art are welcome. Wikipedians of all experience levels are invited! Experienced editors will be on hand to help new editors.
Bring a friend and a laptop! Come one, come all! Learn more here!
Dcoetzee, you posted a portrait on the Sam Houston talk page, and it was used as the lead image in the article. Today we have an IP user who has removed this twice:1, and 2, the second time saying this is not Sam Houston. Can you please clear this up on the article talk page? — Maile (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Dcoetzee. Nobody has objected to my proposal to remove the section "Randy's enablers" from Wikipedia:Randy in Boise, see the talkpage here; not even you, who originally created the section by merging in User:Cardamon's essay. Therefore, I've removed the section; I hope you don't mind. Now, Cardamon would like to have Randy's enablers back as an essay in Wikipedia space. I don't understand how to achieve that and preserve, or recreate, its original history, given that you moved as well as redirected it. I'm afraid of making a mess if I try; I'm not much of a hand at complicated moves. Could you do it, please? Bishonen | talk15:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
User:Rybec had an AfD running for around half of the articles you listed on User talk:CitizenNeutral, and I've put up G5 tags in accordance with the closure of that AfD by User:Tokyogirl79. Some of the others have been edited by others and some even survived AfDs; would it be appropriate to G5 those as well, or only the ones that haven't seen any editing?
Hi Ansh, there is a general de facto rule that articles which have been kept at AfD should not be speedy deleted unless new evidence affecting their suitability for inclusion has come to light. However, sometimes AfD does not thoroughly scrutinize sources, choosing to assume good faith on the part of the original author. Since we obviously cannot assume that here, I think you should consider renominating any that have questionable sources where this issue was not raised in the original discussion. Thanks for your work on the SPI. Dcoetzee08:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's just one of them (PeopleSmart), though; what about "no consensus" or cases where the article has been substantially modified by editors in better standing? Ansh66608:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being clear. G5 doesn't apply to articles substantially edited by others (WP:G5: "which have no substantial edits by others"). With "no consensus" it depends very much on the content of the AfD: my rule of thumb is, if at least one user in good standing has made a reasonable argument in favor of keeping it, and that argument would still apply based on what we know now, then CSD is off the table. It's better to renominate than to unilaterally ignore a reasoned opinon. Dcoetzee08:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The University of California, Berkeley's Berkeley Center for New Media is hosting our first edit-a-thon, facilitated by WikiWoman Sarah Stierch, on April 5! This event, focused on engaging women to contribute to Wikipedia, will feature a brief Wikipedia policy and tips overview, followed by a fast-paced energetic edit-a-thon. Everyone is welcome to attend.
Please bring your laptop and be prepared to edit about women and women's history!
The event is April 5, from 1-5 PM, at the Berkeley Center for New Media Commons at Moffitt Library.
You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. We last contacted you on 3/29/14. Please send us a message if you would like to claim your shirt. --JMatthews (WMF) (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Help for New Wikipedia page
Hey Derrick ,
I wanted to ask you what is appropriate for a Wikipedia page.
We want to do the Oslo Accords Interim Agreement concerning water, but probably it is too short. Ther is an artical about the Oslo II Agreements (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_II), but it only talks about the chapters, wherease the environmental related topics are in the Annexes.
So we thought we can do a page about the environmental related parts of the Interim Agreement, where we can talk briefly about the Accords then summarize the articles that talk about different environment related topics. But we just have one main source which is the Israeli government foreign policy page, where we have all the information for the agreement's different chapters. That probably is not enough, right?
We also want to ask whether we can have a section to criticize the agreement from both the Palestinian and Israeli side.
Can you check Michaelalaa Sandbox1. It's just our first try, so please tell us what you think about it and if it is a good start.
Thank you
I'm really sorry for not responding to your comment - it looks like you ultimately ended up creating The Environmental Provisions of Oslo II Accords. This topic is fine - if it ends up being too short, it can be merged into another article later on, like Oslo II. Just focus on doing the best job with the current article you can and let us worry about that. :-) Dcoetzee08:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Chernoff bound.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out)14:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry! I blocked it for now until I implement a fix for this. It looks like the bot was failing to delete the file on Commons, which is why it kept trying to move it. I'll investigate. Dcoetzee07:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is now fixed and tested and the bot is reactivated. If any other problems occur, I suggest as a quick fix to just remove the "Fair use delete" tag from the file on Commons, noting the bug in the edit summary, and let me know. Thanks! Dcoetzee08:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In editing song articles, I noticed some problems associated with external links to MetroLyrics. Their lyrics for the Jimi Hendrix song "Little Wing" (added by LyricsBot) showed that it was "track #11 on the album Layla. It was written by Young, Christopher." Derek and the Dominos recorded a version for Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs, but the album credits the song to Jimi Hendrix. I changed it to another MetroLyric link that listed it as "track #6 on the album Voodoo Child: The Jimi Hendrix Collection. It was written by Young, Christopher". "Little Wing" is one of Hendrix's best-known songs and all his albums, biographies, songbooks, etc. list him as the composer. I've researched the song for a GAN and didn't find any mention of "Christopher Young" in the usual sources. However, a Google search shows that Christopher Young is credited with a "Little Wing" used in the Love Happens film soundtrack. It's not clear what if any connection exists between the Hendrix song and the Young soundtrack one. (The Young WP article lists his birthdate in 1958; he would have been nine years old when Hendrix recorded "Little Wing".) So I did some further checking on other known Hendrix compositions. Of the five other Hendrix WP song articles with external links to MetroLyrics, not one listed Hendrix as the composer ("Voodoo Child (Slight Return)", "Freedom", "Machine Gun", and "My Friend". Another Hendrix song, "Stepping Stone", shows that it "is track #11 on the album Voodoo Soup. It was written by Robbins, David/stephenson, Van Wesley/silbar, Jeff Alan." Although it is included on Voodoo Soup, the MetroLyrics-supplied lyrics are completely different from Hendrix's, for which he is listed as the songwriter on his albums and bios (not Robbins, et al.).
I thought that maybe this was a problem with Hendrix songs, so I checked some other song articles. Of eight WP song articles that I created which had MetroLyrics added by LyricsBot, only one showed arguably the correct writer (I'll provide the details if needed). If MetroLyrics is a legitimate, licensed lyrics provider, shouldn't they be able to properly match song titles, lyrics, and songwriters? If indeed "lyrics copyright holders accrue royalty revenue when their work is displayed on MetroLyrics.com", shouldn't MetroLyrics know who those copyright holders are? Meanwhile, maybe WP should rethink using lyrics providers until it is certain that they are compliant. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are many errors on MetroLyrics, in credits and in the lyrics themselves. It is indeed mysterious to me that a licensed lyric provider has such errors, but all the evidence indicates clearly that they are licensed - I have letters from executives at their parent company to this effect. Most likely they're getting incorrect data directly from their provider LyricFind. I can only speculate where the errors originally come from - many they're doing data entry from liner notes and not verifying them correctly. In any case there are few alternatives available, but if you can find one that you believe is more compliant then I'll definitely take a look. Dcoetzee
That is odd. Performing rights organizations (BMI, ASCAP, etc.), who collect money for songwriters, manage to match them with their compositions much more accurately. In my sample, even liner notes get it mostly right, whereas MetroLyrics gets nearly 100% wrong. They may be getting their information by an automated process, without adequate manual oversight—this might explain why there are so many MetroLyrics links to instrumentals. Since their problems are well-known, WP should not be adding MetroLyrics links automatically to all songs. It should be up to an article editor to decide if the information is correct enough to warrant a link. Bad lyric information is already too easy to find—WP should not be contributing to the problem. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've begun to remove links to MetroLyrics which have incorrect information (usually songwriter). I do this only as I encounter them while working on songs or categories and so far have removed about 35. While this may be a small number, it is a fairly high percentage (guesstimate more than 50%). Possibly this could be done by an automated process, which removes lyrics where the the MetroLyrics listed songwriter does not match that in the song or single infobox for the article. Also, is there a way to prevent the bot from re-adding links that have been removed? —Ojorojo (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Duplication Detector's roll in CVD
Hello there Dcoetzee! I've been working on creating a new userscript that makes it much easier to find CVs on Wikipedia by opening new tabs/windows preloading the pagename and a URL to test with your tool. You can see the script (still in alpha stages) at User:Technical 13/Scripts/CVD.js. The reason I am here, is I'm wondering if your tool has an API that I could use to not have to open as many windows for the user (some pages literally have 100s of URLs in them that are all potential test candidates, although I am doing some filtering (and have more filtering to figure out))? Is there a way to test a page against more than one URL at a time with your tool? That might be useful as well to be able to do batches of three or five pages at a time. Thanks for any help with this project that you can offer. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)17:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to implement this right now but my code is available on github and is self-contained (doesn't require Tool Labs access), so you might be able to make the modifications yourself. Sorry about that! Dcoetzee14:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Duplication Detector and references
Dear Dcoetzee, I have the following suggestion to your tool:
What is the perceived problem:
At the moment Duplication Detector does not seem to distinguish between the main body of the Wikipedia article and references. This creates the following issue. If an article has a reference to a "Source with some long name" and some other document somewhere in the internet (say article in the magazine) refers to the same "Source with some long name", then your tool, quite rightly, would detect it like a text duplication between the article in the magazine and a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia admins then do not spend much time to work out what caused duplication and just delete the article under copyright violations rules.
Improvement suggestion:
Put a check-box (selected by default)to ignore Wikipedia article text in the sections "References" and "External links". Ev2geny (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)Ev, there is technically nothing in the "References" section except a {{Reflinks}} template most of the time. The actual references are in the body of the text. It's not the tool's job to figure out what text should be or should not be considered as a CV, it is up to the user that tags it and the administrator that deletes it to confirm that they are actual content duplications. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)19:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Technical 13: I am glad you commented this. I agree that in the ideal world human shall check the exact nature of text duplication. However in my experience Administrator did not have too much time to go into details and just deleted article, which takes now lots of efforts to recover. Also, let us be honest, any text within the Reference section can probably never be a copyright violation, hence it could be a good idea to ask tool to ignore it to save human a time.
when I say, "ignore text in the Reference section", for Wiki text this would mean "ignore text between <ref> </ref> tags" Ev2geny (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would be a useful feature, although I don't think it should be enabled by default (it's better to be thorough). I don't have time to implement it at the moment but I'll keep it in mind. In the meantime you might also inquire about the bot that marks the copyvios so that it's less likely to mark articles that only have duplication in references. Dcoetzee14:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A kitten for you!
Hi. You sent me a message 1.5 years ago re John Gottman, and I JUST figured out this way of getting back to you. Thanks for much for your feedback!
Hello, Dcoetzee. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 05:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IHeartRadio Music Festival until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Launchballer07:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Writers from all over the Bay Area and the world will be in town during the nine day festival, so the timing is just right for us to meet, create and improve articles about literature and writers.
All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. This event will include new editor training. Please bring your laptop.
Hi, just checking to see if Dupe Detector is all ok. For the last day or so, it is unable to connect to the non-wiki page being checked. It returns "unable to connect" and "short result". One example: [8]
Confirmed (which DQ did a few minutes ago). When dealing with such socks, some admins have more knowledge about particular recurring vandals / trolls; if you had discussed this with the blocking admin you might have found out that this LTA has created a dozen socks, all doing the same thing. Or if you had bothered to check the sock category, the SPI, or looked to see that the account was an obvious sleeper, or complaining that DQ blocked his IP.
Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-Link has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. GZWDer (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
