User talk:Krd

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day. For the archive overview, see archive.

Hallo Krd

Ich würde gerne die in Dodis – Diplomatic Documents of Switzerland 1848–1975 verwendete Photo in meinen Wikipedia-Artikel über de:Carl Stucki einstellen. Da ich ohnehin mit Dodis im Kontakt stand, fragte ich auch gleich, ob sie einverstanden wären, die Photo unter die Lizenz CC BY-SA 4.0 zu stellen, damit ich sie in den Wikipediaartikel einfügen könne, worauf die folgende Antwort kam: «Die Porträtbilder dürfen Sie gerne unter Angabe der Quelle bei Dodis verwenden (Diplomatische Dokumente der Schweiz, Online-Datenbank Dodis: dodis.ch/P112).» Frage: Reicht diese Zustimmung für Wikimedia Commons? (Den vollständigen Mailverkehr kann ich gerne nachliefern.)

Beste Grüsse, --Freigut (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ich frage mich, ob die wirklich die Rechte an den Bildern haben. So richtig plausibel erscheint mir das nicht. Wenn die Behauptung aber stimmt, dann kann das einfach so nach Commons kopiert werden. --Krd 14:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ich habe mich auch gefragt, ob sie die Rechte wirklich haben. Aber ich bezweifle, dass ein Nachfragen zu einem sicheren Ergebnis führt ... Anderseits scheint es sich um eine simple Personalfoto zu handeln, ohne jeden künstlerischen Wert – aber ob das ein Argument ist, weiss ich nicht. Kann man sich allenfalls einfach darauf abstellen, das Dodis der Meinung ist, die Rechte zu haben? Wenn sie das behaupten, kann es nicht unsere Aufgabe sein, das zu verifzieren. Was meinst du? --Freigut (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ich denke wir sollten da nachfragen. Ich kann mir das ansehen, aber das wird ein paar Tage dauern. --Krd 05:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danke. --Freigut (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Äh – du setzest den Erledigt-Baustein – ist das denn jetzt erledigt? Ich dachte, du wolltest dir das ansehen? Oder kann ich das Bild jetzt hochladen, mit Beifügung des Mails von Dodis, dass sie damit einverstanden seien (siehe oben)? --Freigut (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Äh, sorry, das war wohl ein Irrtum. Ja, das steht leider noch aus. --Krd 16:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lieber Krd, sehe gerade, dass auch in den Artikel Flavio Cotti eine Dodis-Foto eingefügt worden ist. Zur Lizenzierung siehe hier. Insofern sollte der Verwendung der Dodis-Foto von Carl Stucki somit auch nichts im Wege stehen. Lieber Gruss, --Freigut (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Habe die Foto nun hochgeladen und publiziert. LG, --Freigut (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitte gib mir nochmal einen Hinweis oder Link, was genau zu tun ist. --Krd 13:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siehe oben – ich fragte nach, ob dieses Bild publiziert werden dürfe, und du wolltest dem nachgehen. Nachdem nun ein anderes aus Dodis anstandslos publiziert worden ist, steht auch «meinem» Bild nichts mehr entgegen – die Sache hat sich also erledigt. Einen guten Rutsch ins 2021 wünscht --Freigut (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ich bin nicht dvon überzeugt, dass hier eine Klärung stattgefunden hat oder das so in Ordnung ist, aber ich komme auf absehbare Zeit auch nicht dazu, mich darum zu kümmern. --Krd 14:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trotz Impressum, wonach «die Inhalte von Dodis – Diplomatische Dokumente der Schweiz [...] lizenziert [sind] unter einer Creative Commons Namensnennung 4.0 International Lizenz»? Dann ist es eigentlich die Sache von Dodis, sich um die Details zu kümmern, und nicht von Wikimedia Commons – die sind meines Erachtens fein raus. Aber wie auch immer, ich bin da kein Spezialist. --Freigut (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Die Frage ist, ob es sich dabei um Inhalte handelt, an denen Dodis Rechteinhaber ist. Wenn es sich einfach um eine falsche Behauptung handelt, z.b. um einen Irrtum, dann ist das schon teilweise "unser" Problem, weil wir als Commons den Weiternutzer dazu ermunter, das Bild zu nutzen. Aber vielleicht hast Du recht damit, dass es ein Problem ist, das wir aus Zeitmangel nicht lösen werden. --Krd 15:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed you left a message on my talk page about File:Official portrait of General SM Shafiuddin Ahmed.jpg. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any additional information on the website I retrieved the image from. I have attempted to contact the copyright holders (the Bangladesh Army) through use of the system on their website which was fruitless. The image had a passage of text attached beneath it which states "copyright under fear usage policy" is this not sufficient enough? Please can you advise me on what to do next.

Kind regards, AMomen88 (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. If we don't have permission, we cannot use the image. --Krd 07:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

It seems Krdbot is using an ooold (from 2010) version of MediaWiki::Bot (3.2.6), which is meaning it's still doing some long deprecated calls to the MW API to request tokens, see phab:T280806.

At some point in the near future, that's probably going to be broken (as it's been deprecated for nearly 7 years). Looking at the changelog, you need to be on >= 5.006000 from 2014-09-01.

Any chance you can look at updating the version of the library you use?

Thanks!

Reedy (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It can of course be done, but that will mean rewriting all scripts nearly from scratch. Maybe with a scale of end of 2021, as there are too many concurrent issues at the moment. --Krd 16:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just be aware that your bot may break at some point in the future until its updated. Reedy (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note, but I currently see no way to expedite this, so we sadly will have to live with it. --Krd 17:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the stuff a bit, and I think it is possible to port the relevant changes into my modified old version. It's nothing I'd like to do without need, but it's not a showstopper and can be done with not too much pain when the deprecated calls are removed. --Krd 11:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be appreciated if you can fix them before we turn them off... It makes the tracking the improvement easier, especially if it's fairly easy. Reedy (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following up from IRC... You will need to change your code and/or the library you're using. The change in MW is https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/core/+/153110 from November 2014. The two queries I see KrdBot making at action=query&prop=info&intoken and action=query&prop=revisions&rvtoken.

You can probably just look for intoken and rvtoken in your code.

A query like https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=revisions&rvtoken=rollback&titles=User:Reedy needs replacing with https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=revisions&meta=tokens&type=rollback&titles=User:Reedy. The position of the token in the output may vary.

A query like https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=info&intoken=edit&titles=User:Reedy becomes https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=info&meta=tokens&type=csrf&titles=User:Reedy

Note, a few of the intoken token types have been changed/condensed. intoken was one of block, delete, edit, email, import, move, protect, unblock, watch as per https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php?action=help&modules=query%2Binfo, but now it's createaccount, csrf, deleteglobalaccount, login, patrol, rollback, setglobalaccountstatus, userrights, watch; many of them have just become csrf as per https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php?action=help&modules=query%2Btokens

In most cases, you just need to swapout the intoken=foo and rvtoken=foo for a meta=tokens&type=foo type call.

HTH. Reedy (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Will have a look. --Krd 05:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding login sessions, unless they're explicitly invalidated, most should in theory last a year. The MediaWiki API has an assert framework, where you can pass assert=user or assert=bot... Or even assertuser=USERNAME to confirm you're logged in and such. As for reusing tokens, I think it may depend on the type of token... Reedy (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would you be amenable to coding a method of archiving COM:UDR if it were split into subpages? Please see the subject section.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Perhaps not from one to to the next, but in general I think this will be possible. --Krd 16:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, but what do you mean by "from one to to the next"? I envision the subpages to be like DRs, but for undeletion.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 22:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean even if may take only an hour to build that, it may be a week or two required to get a timeslot for that. Although I have very some active days currently, this changes from day to day for my current personal situation, and I cannot say in advance when I will have time and when not. Please let me know here as soon as this is ready for implementing and testing. --Krd 05:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the image description. It reads like an advertisement. We don't allow such promotional material on en.WP and I would think the same applies here, does it not? There are several photos of the same person that appear to be pure promos. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The image appears to be in scope, although the description should be cleaned, which I have done now. Are there more affected images? --Krd 13:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - there are many! See the Streamy Award categories like this one, this one and this one, which is unbelievable. Not all the images have the promo description but lots of them do. Is there a bot we can use to fix them - something like the Auto-Wiki Browser? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should ask @Josve05a: why these images are uploaded with such promotional description texts? --Krd 07:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In order to keep attribution etc. the original descriptions from Flickr was retained when the images were transferred to Wikimedia Commons. It's sad to see that there was this much promotional text however, which has been rightfully been removed from some images already. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you assist removing it from the other uploads? --Krd 19:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]