User talk:DatGuy/Archives/2022/May
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
DatBot pull request
Hi, DatGuy. I encountered a bug in DatBot at Special:Permalink/1087088030, caused by a username containing equals signs. I've put in a pull request at https://github.com/DatGuy1/Bot-Tasks/pull/5, when you have a moment. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
the guide of the perfect family
Hi, I am currently working on the french wikipedia page of The Guide to the Perfect Family and I would like to include the poster featured on the english page that you created. However, I've encounter copyrights issues and I am unable to properly import the image. I write to ask for your help. Thank you for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nouga777 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I'm not too familiar with the French Wikipedia's policies on non-free files. Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
File:Youth Olympic Games Third Version.svg
Hi DatGuy. Do you know why DatBot first resized and then tagged File:Youth Olympic Games Third Version.svg with {{Orphaned non-free revisions}}? The file isn't licensed as non-free content. Is it because someone (mistakenly) tagged the file with {{Non-free reduce}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Unless I'm missing something, I believe if indeed it falls under the threshold of originality it's recommended to export the file to Commons. Uploading files on the English Wikipedia is generally used for non-free content. Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't upload the file. I was just asking why the DatBot resized it for being a non-free file when it wasn't licensed as such. It's true that many files uploaded locally to Wikipedia are non-free, but there are quite a lot uploaded locally which are not. There're probably various reasons for this and some of these files are eventually tagged for a move to Commons; that still, however, doesn't explain why the bot reduced a file that was not licensed as non-free. If the bot has been set up to simply reduce local files regardless of their licensing, then that's probably not a good thing and should be considered. FWIW, I'm just trying to figure out what happened here; I'm not trying to blame anyone for anything. Even though the file wasn't licensed as non-free, it was (for some reason) also flagged as a WP:NFCC#9 violation, which shouldn't have happened. So, perhaps there's something about this file that's telling bots that it's non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: DatBot finds files with {{Non-free reduce}} and reduces them. If a user mistakenly tags a file with {{Non-free reduce}} then DatBot will reduce it. There is no problem with the bot.Jonteemil (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think that might be a problem if that's all the bot is looking for and it's not also checking the license. Mistagging can happen and there should be someway of asking the bot to check the license instead. Perhaps, there is or there's a way to review what the bot has reduced before the older versions end up "deleted" (i.e. hidden). -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: DatBot finds files with {{Non-free reduce}} and reduces them. If a user mistakenly tags a file with {{Non-free reduce}} then DatBot will reduce it. There is no problem with the bot.Jonteemil (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't upload the file. I was just asking why the DatBot resized it for being a non-free file when it wasn't licensed as such. It's true that many files uploaded locally to Wikipedia are non-free, but there are quite a lot uploaded locally which are not. There're probably various reasons for this and some of these files are eventually tagged for a move to Commons; that still, however, doesn't explain why the bot reduced a file that was not licensed as non-free. If the bot has been set up to simply reduce local files regardless of their licensing, then that's probably not a good thing and should be considered. FWIW, I'm just trying to figure out what happened here; I'm not trying to blame anyone for anything. Even though the file wasn't licensed as non-free, it was (for some reason) also flagged as a WP:NFCC#9 violation, which shouldn't have happened. So, perhaps there's something about this file that's telling bots that it's non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)