Wikipedia talk:Untagged images/Archive 3

message: Hi all. I was wondering how we should handle images that are from the Commons that only have a page here to categorize it on Wikipedia, such as :Image:Lemur_huddle.jpg. Is there something I can tag it with that will prevent it from being listed again? ~MDD4696 03:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images from Commons 

message: So... dealing with  and other people who repeatly upload picutres w/o copyright and source information, isnt that against Wiki rules... and eventually lead in a block. The only other warn template I could find was  which just says you have 2 more days before all their images are deleted... Can we do anything about these people? --Admrboltz (T | C) 23:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we generally don't block people unless they keep doing something they have been told not to. So generally only people who keep uploading after beeing told not to are blocked, meaning people are typicaly not blocked for whatever they uploaded prior to theyr first warning. If someone keep uploading unsourced and untagged images after beeing warned however, you should report it on either Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, use the later only in "slam dunk" cases where no debate is nessesary.--Sherool (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *nods* so how do we warn people like ? --Admrboltz (T | C) 05:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well personaly I would add  and/or  only once each, those messages include instructions to check and fix any other uploaded images too, so no need to clutter the talkpage with a dozen identical messages for each of the images, it just tend to overwhealm the user. So just make sure they know that they have at least one image that will be deleted if they don't fix things and then tag the rest of theyr problematic uploads. If they then keep uploading more unsourced images I'd suggest leaving a fairly sharp (though not hostile) message telling them that if they upload any more images without the nessesary information they will most likely be blocked. I don't think we have any handy templates for that kind of thing so you'll have to write the message yourself (point to WP:VAND and the message on the upload page itself). In this particular case I don't think any further action is required though. True he was technically warned in August and still uploaded such images, but it's been over a month since he uploaded anyting and he seems inactive anyway. If he comes back and keep doing it he should be nabbed right away though, but blocking an inactive user for something that happened a month ago would just be a waste of time IMHO. --Sherool (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multipule warnings 

message: Wouldn't the simplest way to deal with these untagged images be to have a bot tag them all as , and have another bot notify - it would save a whole lot of editor hours.--nixie 12:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it would result in a ton of images getting wrongfully deleted as well. Quite a few of the images I've run into are perfectly fine for inclusion, but they just don't have the proper tag. ~MDD4696 17:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on whether we're getting ahead or falling behind. If manual labor is not keeping up with the uploads, then stern measures may be necessary. At commons we're shooting on sight, and it just barely keeps up with the copyvios. Stan 20:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a valid point... so far it looks to me like we're falling behind, unfortunately. ~MDD4696 03:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea... perhaps another modification of the upload screen requiring a source? It would be a bit daunting for the n00bs, but I think it is needed... --Admrboltz (T | C) 04:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But then you start getting a bunch of improperly tagged images, because people either guess or they just pick one so they can upload the image. ~MDD4696 04:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a decision should be required on the upload page in the license dropdown, even if the choice is something like, "I need help picking one". Currently if you don't choose anything it still uploads. - cohesion★talk 02:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's definitely reasonable.  The thoughtless can still upload without a real license, but at least are forced to consciously indicate that. Superm401 | Talk 07:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think a lot of the problem is people just not realizing that one of the tags really has to be selected, it's a complicated decision, and if it seems unnecessary people will just skip it. I think if there was some warning that one wasn't selected people would (reluctantly) look through them at least. - cohesion★talk 10:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Having manually done a hundred untagged images last night, I'm all in favor. Also have the bot spam talk pages, after about 50 of those long notices on a talk page, the uploader might get the message... Stan 14:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think something needs to be done at upload to make it more obvious to people that a tag is required, as of right now if people don't pick anything there isn't even a warning about it. - cohesion★talk 19:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there should be a line for source, it should be required (or it auto tags it with ) and if they dont select a license tag (i dont alot because I will tag it with one that isnt listed), it should tag it with  not the fru fru "i dont know where i got it from" tag or add the 'Image with unknown license as of DD-MM" like   does so its easier for us admins to clean them out. --Admrboltz (T | C) 19:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The advantage of offering people with an "I don't know" tag is that you can then conveniently find and delete them all at the end of each day; better than trying to push uploaders into lying about the image's status. Stan 20:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont mind the tag, but I think it needs to have the normal no source category added into it to make it simpler. --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 20:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No information

message: Has anyone developed any tools for image tagging? I looked briefly at Wikipedia:Tools but didn't see anything. Perhaps I will develop one for us to use... ~MDD4696 05:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought of one before, I think that is a good idea. --Jaranda wat's sup 05:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I "hacked" the "Wikify" tab user js script to make myself one click "no source" and "no license" tabs when editing images. If anyone is interested feel free to pillage my monobook.js script. Just copy everyting except the Lupin popup thing at the top to make it work (I don't have any easy to install "plugin" page). It automaticaly adds the relevant tag  and save (so make any other edits before you click it) all in one click. I guess it could be even more time saving it you didn't have to open the edit page first, but this way you at least have the option to do a manual edit before you fire up the "auto-tagger". Notifying the uploader is still "manual" but I find it somewhat useful. --Sherool (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I had to redo my whole monobook.js but it seems to be working for me now with no source, no license, purge this page, the popups and the force edit summaries. --Admrboltz (T | C) 16:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I use mac text clippings, and just drag them over, a low tech solution, but it works pretty well for me. It's very easy to add new ones too, and change them based on the date etc. - cohesion★talk 08:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and it's Firefox only so far. Sorry! ~MDD4696 04:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image tagging tools? 

message: There are a lot of maps that look like they were made with the same tool example::Image:LocationOceania.png are these being created with some tool where the output can be gfdl'd? They are used in a lot of key articles, so I didn't want to move too quickly on most of them. Many are already on the commons and tagged correctly, but the remaining ones aren't and I don't know the source. - cohesion★talk 19:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the answer, I will post if here in case other people come across the issue, they are from a PDF the world fact book came out with apparently, so I am tagging them Template:PD-USGov-CIA-WF - cohesion★talk 04:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps 

message: Can an admin please edit :Image:Logo.gif, :Image:Logo.jpg, and :Image:Logo.png to include the tag ? I'll assume someone will do that and go ahead and remove it from the list now. Thanks :D - cohesion★talk 04:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done for tagging, dont know what list its in, thats up to you :) --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 04:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanky very mush sir :) - cohesion★talk 01:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor admin edit 

message: I've been trying to help out with this project but got some questions. 
What should you do when you encounted a fair use poster/cover which is high resolution? Plus, how can you easily check that. Just look at the size of the image in question?
:Good question... --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 23:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't spend time on it right now. First, we don't have an agreed number specifying what "low resolution" is supposed to mean (some seem to think 100x100, clearly too small), and second, once images are tagged, it is easy to go into fair use categories and sort images by size, address them all at once. Stan 23:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Makes sense. That's going to be a nice project btw. Garion96 (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I dont, mainly because its not used in any articles. --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 23:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Depends - sometimes images appear orphaned because the article using them has been vandalized (happened to one of my images just today). If I can identify what it's supposed to illustrate (such as when the article is linked from the desc page), I go look at it to see what's up. Stan 23:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's what I thought. Tnx for the responses. Back to some more tagging. Garion96 (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some questions 

message: Looks like the  usage has been changed so that needs to be reflected here.  Thanks.  —Wknight94 (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:no license notified]] 

message: Some tags have been listed on templates for deletion which may be of interest. The templates listed are Template:PD-AUGov, Template:Webimage, Template:PD-USGov-Congress-USBG, Template:QualificationsandCurriculumAuthorityCopyright, Template:LandRegistryCopyright, Template:TeacherTrainingAuthorityCopyright, Template:Ordnance Survey Copyright, Template:UNPhotoArchive, Template:PD-old-50. Template:CanadaCopyright is waiting to be orphaned. Does anyone involved in image tagging ever look at templates for deletion? Secretlondon 03:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any of the "x for deletion" pages make my eyes bleed, so I generally avoid. :-) Not so important anyway, the great majority of the untagged images I see are speedy-delete orphans or unsourced not-quite-so-speedy deletes. Stan 06:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags on Templates for deletion

message: When you find an untagged image,  you might want to check the article history: maybe the uploader provided a suitable licence but the licence has been deleted by a vandal. It would have been a shame if :Image:How e-mail works.png had been deleted. Gdr 13:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't forget to check the history 

message: Even while this is going on, I'm sure new untagged images are piling up, and so I'm thinking we need a strategy that is more of a steady process. For instance, a bot could go through frequently and and put each untagged image into some sort of a "untagged" category for human review. This could also catch blanked existing images that Gdr mentions, so one would want it in addition to any of the upload changes suggested a while back. Stan 20:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Note that my reply kind of goes off on a tangent) I think that in general we have a huge problem with regards to images that are either untagged or tagged with templates that don't describe the copyright/license status of the image, or are depreciated.  I wonder whether there's any benefit in setting up some sort of project or something that attempts to ensure that all images are tagged with a valid, encouraged template.  Right now WP:UI is ensuring that all untagged images as of last December are getting tagged.  However, some of the contributors continue to tag images with depreciated templates such as  or dubious templates such as , which just moves the problem around, and doesn't eliminate it.  There isn't any project that's trying to re-tag all images tagged with, say,  with a valid template (or delete them), or to ensure that all current uploads are tagged with a template that's not depreciated or dubious, or to ensure that people don't re-tag existing images with dubious templates.  Maybe having some sort of bot that checks whether an image has been tagged with a template in WP:ICT#Public_domain, WP:ICT#Free_licenses, or WP:ICT#Fair_use might be a start.  JYolkowski // talk 22:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I see nothing wrong with changing the script we're using now to put images in a category instead of on pages as they are now.  It's also appropriate to include images tagged with non-copyright tags.  However, this won't solve the problem of us being overwhelmed by untagged images. Superm401 - Talk 01:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can get an indication of the number of new untagged images being added by looking at . The current rate seems to be about 15 per hour, or about 1000 over a three day period. Luckily many of these get caught and fixed before they hang around for too long. The advantage of dealing with the newest images is that you may be able to properly instruct uploaders before they continue to upload hundereds more untagged/copyright infringing images. --Martyman-(talk) 01:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To me that strongly suggests a daily category, a la the no-source images. Psychologically I suspect that people will work harder if doing "just a few more" empties the category, vs making a tiny dent, plus the list of dated subcategories clearly when things start to fall behind. Stan 13:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting! Since the current pile of untagged images is about a six-month accumulation (right?), at 200/day that adds up to 36,000, or pretty close to the starting pile size, suggesting the rate hasn't changed much. To put it another way, if this initiative manages to finish the current pile in four months, there will be a new pile of 24,000 untagged images accumulated in the meantime. That's why I think we need to do something semi-automatic to truncate the incoming stream. Stan 01:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a good argument for doing so.  Based on your arithmetic, it sounds like we'll continue to be several months behind for a very long time at this rate.  Furthermore, I think that it's good to catch untagged images as soon as possible, before the uploader's been gone for several months.  Anyone have thoughts as to how to best deal with the new untagged images?  JYolkowski // talk 00:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also my comment below (shortly).  JYolkowski // talk 20:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long-term plan 

message: I've created a brief demonstration of my Image Autotagger tool if anyone would like to preview it. The code is available from my monobook.js, but I've got to polish it a bit, make it a little more flexible, and of course write documentation. You can test the Fast Tagger tab on :Image:TestImage.jpg.
Features:
* Image Autotagger - A popup tool window for many images
** Rapidly tag a list of images
** Select license from a drop-down and have it inserted automatically
** Automatic edit summaries
** (To do) Automatically notify uploader
* Fast Tagger - A popup "tag" tab for one image
** Tag an image in just one click
** Quickly tag an image with No License, No Source, or IFD.
** Automatic, overridable edit summary
I'd really appreciate any comments or ideas! ~MDD4696 23:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave this a try and couldn't figure out how to use it. How do you let it know which image you want to tag? Also it has a few layout issues in Firefox for me. --Martyman-(talk) 00:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should've put more of an explanation up, because it seems that YouTube takes a while to "process" videos you upload. Currently, you must use a list of images as your starting point. For example, type User:Mdd4696/Sandbox into the box in the upper right, and then click "Load". This loads a list of images for you to tag (you can also used the Wikipedia:Untagged Images lists, like Wikipedia:Untagged images/2005dec13-2). Double click on any of the images in the list to load it and edit it. You can automatically insert a tag from the drop-downs, or you can edit by hand. Does that help Martyman? I'll look into making it more intuitive from the get-go. Also, could you take a screenshot and post it at ImageShack (free, no registration)? ~MDD4696 00:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks for that, that makes much more sense. I will give it another try. I have uploaded a screenshot at . For anyone interested I just added the follow text to my monobook.js to include Mdd4696's javascript, once theis is up and running properly it would be nice if it could have it's own page that could be included like this. --Martyman-(talk) 00:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Alright, if anyone's interesting, the Image Autotagger now has a page: User:Mdd4696/Image Autotagger. ~MDD4696 05:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Autotagger (Firefox only) 

message: On the project page there is discussion of image pages that are only links to images on the commons :Image:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Day (1881).jpg This is actually very common, and I think it happens for every image on the commons maybe. When you click on any image on en you go to an en page saying the image is on the commons, but there are no gfdl tags etc. There are *a lot* of images that are like this. Anyway, I don't really know what is going on and would like someone to explain it :) Is the parser not seeing that they are tagged, or are they pages that really should be deleted? - cohesion★talk 07:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new problem 

message: Possibly a stupid question, but what happened to ? Was the lack of a date format an issue? Dethomas 23:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific? I still use the template. --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 03:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Nevermind... just used it... use Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 04:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  or-fu-nr template 

message: Can we add the images in :Category:Uploader unsure of copyright status to the list of things needing tagging at the next dump? It is getting out of control really, and doing it within a category is rough. - cohesion★talk 18:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree we should look at them, even more so since someone asked for us to :D I would like them to be mixed in with the other images needing tags so we could look at them here too. This could be in addition to the category. - cohesion★talk 05:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hack at it from time to time, I reckon that about 10% of what is in there is easily saveable. It really needs users to go through by hand: non admins can always add a  or  tag as appropriate so that they get hit by the mass deletions. Physchim62 (talk) 06:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Uploader unsure of copyright status 

message: There are a number of untagged images (:Image:Djilas.jpg is an example) that claim:  "This image is freely available on the internet from various sources in the public domain. The same image was created in the former (socialist) Yugoslavia and as such does not enjoy any copyright protection."
There are similar templates for former Soviet images and for images from Poland.  I haven't been able to verify the claim that images from the former Yugoslavia aren't entitled to protection.  How should we best deal with these?
--SteinbDJ 14:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The images are still lacking a source, and should be tagged . --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 17:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yugolavian images 

message: What are we doing about images on commons that have a description page here used to categorise the images. I have been ignoring them and removing them from the lists, but this will result in them being flagged again the next time a full database search is performed looking for images lacking copyrights. An example image is :Image:Regions of Czech Republic.png. Should there be some kind of  tag that could show up as a license tag in the database. --Martyman-(talk) 02:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be a good idea. If it has a cat I will leave it alone, but if it is just random text, especially if its the exact same text as on commons, I will just delete the page (if you arent an admin just use  --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 05:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, whatever the parser needs to not add these back to untagged lists, I don't think we actually need any on-screen information about these images that isn't already there though. For example a message saying "This image is on the commons and has been tagged there" will be redundant since that information is already provided. - cohesiont 19:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons image with a nearly blank description here 

message: I want to know what should be done once an image gets tagged with an image tag or no source tag. Should i remove or system removes it automatically. Thanks-- Shyam (T/C) 09:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: remove it from the list, and update the count on the main page :) --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 09:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I tag an image with "no source", i am trying to notify the uploader with  but their responses are very worst. Is there any other good tag with which we can notify the uploader. Thank you -- Shyam (T/C) 07:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they're being nicer than they would have been had the images been actually deleted! :-) I think it shows the hazard of blasting through and applying the no source tag indiscriminately - if the pages say "my photo" and you say "no source", then you're calling them liars, but if you say "no license", then they're OK with it. Another thing is to look out for intent - "GFDL" is often given as GFDL, which is sufficient to demonstrate intent, and just needs a small edit. Even with my slower approach to tagging, there were still a couple people who grumbled that I notified them(!). Welcome to the admins' world, where the mess-makers are free to criticize the people who clean up after them... Stan 14:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Stan for your solution. I have a confusion which tag should I use for an image if it has an url address using Fair use in...images tag.  Shyam (T/C) 21:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it has a source URL and  its tagged as far as we are concerned. There is a WP out there for Fair Use. --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 21:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your suggestions, I am very new to tag the image. So i am not so expert and facing many problems. Here is one- If an image like :Image:Chesapeake Bay Bridge small.jpg has a amall version of the original image :Image:Chesapeake Bay Bridge.jpg. I don't know what's the need of another one which is smaller but it exists. Which tag should be used for smaller one? Thanks-11:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep the big one. Make sure everyything links to the big one and tag the small one with  --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 23:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: get tagged images

message: Can somebody tell me the reason for not able to see the project page. It shows starting article dialogue. Thanks  Shyam (T/C) 00:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you tried clearing your browser cache - Shift Reload in Mozilla(Ctrl Reload in IE, I think), and purging the page (action=purge instead of action=edit)?  Can you paste here the exact text that appears? JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't work for me either - all I see is the "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.." message. but when I click edit this page, all the content is there. I tried to purge (shift+reload in firefox) but it didnt work -- Astrokey44|talk 02:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That sounds exactly like a purge problem.  Try this URL. Let me know if this works. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unable to see the proect page 

message: There are some contributors who look at this page, but put little effort into fixing the problems.  Some contributors simply place templates on user's talk pages telling them about an untagged problem, and make no effort to find the necessary information themselves.  One particular user did so to an imae which I uploaded, and I gave him the exact URL of the image, and he still would not apply the correct tag himself.  This sends a negative message in a wiki environment and discourages contribution.  I think people would have less of a problem with some contributors to the untagged project if they showed that they are willing to put more effort than just applying templates (Which I think are bad anyways).  --MateoP 04:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look further up this page - 17,000 images still messed up, after months of cleanup effort. It would be completely within WP rules to mark all the images with a bot and delete them en masse in a week. I've cleaned up several thousand myself, and let me tell you, at this point I've lost all interest in hearing people's excuses for making messes and not cleaning up after themselves. We wouldn't even have to have this project if you had done what you were explicitly and repeatedly instructed to do as part of uploading. Stan 06:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To play devils advocate for a second, some of the images are quite old, back when the image use policy wasn't clear, and we were allowing even non commercial images... Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 06:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to toolserver, we've scrubbed everything up to early April 2005; all of those 17,000 images are now known to be less than a year old. Stan 13:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Irrelevant to the topic.  This isn't a "who's to blame for what" topic.  --MateoP 06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I sympathise with your point of view, which seems to be that merely alerting uploaders to the untagged status of their images discourages contributions, the basic point remains that, at this point, contributions of images without clear sources and licenses are not something we need more of.  Discouraging such contributions is useful, sadly enough.  When/if we don't have a 17,000 image backlog asking for more kindness and follow up is more likely to recieve a friendly answer.  JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The part about MateoP's chutzpah I find really irritating is that in fact we have acted to save huge numbers of the images. It should only have been necessary to post one note to each active editor; they would then go and fix up all their own uploads, as the notice requests, and our focus could have been on inactives. Most active editors have cleaned up after themselves, but there are some incorrigibles. Stan 13:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point, I would have thought, of alerting the uploader of the image problem is two-fold: firstly, so that that uploader can tag the untagged image as they should have initially; and secondly, so that the uploader learns about the importance of image tagging, and will hopefully remember to do so next time. MateoP says he informed a tagger of the source URL, and then expected that editor to update the tag accordingly, when clearly, MateoP should have done it themselves! Far from discouraging contributions, I think the warnings we leave encourage users to contribute, and cleanup and maintain their contributions where appropriate. --Canley 02:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with some contributors 

message: Inspired by the "group by user" report of toolserver, I'm trying a new experiment with some of the bigger uploaders (10+ images) who are still actively editing, namely to post a single note that includes the URL to the toolserver result so they can see their own state, and asking them to clean up the images. No results to report yet. Stan 06:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SimonATL has cleaned up all his images nicely. Yay! Stan 14:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There are two sets of the same images, uploaded with different names. I amused myself with a bit of research, and the reference to Vaderland in :Image:Rsl 15.jpg dates it definitely to 1914 or earlier (see ), so PD-US is appropriate. Stan 14:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New experiment 

message: So, as many of you know orphanbot notifies the uploader after we tag the images as no source or no license. Part of the message sends the user to a page if they have any questions. Right now it's sending people to User talk:Carnildo/images where a few of us help answer questions. I was wondering if people would be ok with this page being a subpage of Wikipedia:Untagged images or some other place. I would like to get it out of user talk space and into wikipedia or even help space. This would be a centralized place for people to ask about images they were notified about (same as it is now, just new location). Any thoughts about where the page should be, etc? I have asked Carnildo already and he is ok with moving it. - cohesiont 10:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a great idea.  We can put it pretty much anywhere; i.e. Wikipedia:Image legality questions would be a fine name. JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good, I didn't think of that, but really it makes sense to have one centralized question area for all these notifications, orphanbot, roomba (does it notify people?) user added templates , and  could all point to it. - cohesiont 19:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would also prevent a lot of the personal attacks against Carnildo. The JPS 23:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I started the page, nothing links to it yet, I thought I should probably give it some time to see what people want to change, I copied a lot from the Wikipedia:Newcomers help page but if anyone has any ideas change away :) - cohesiont 09:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I've modified OrphanBot's notification messages to point to the new page.  People should start showing up in the next day or so. --Carnildo 00:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I will change the  and  to point there also. There is a a link to include instructions for people helping answer questions, if anyone wants to put helpful tips there go ahead, if not I might just delete it, I don't know if we will really need instructions for the helpers. - cohesiont 06:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphanbot help 

message: Just so people don't get too happy that we've finished the static lists(even though that is great...) as of now, according to the up-to-date tool, we have 14,151 untagged images left. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, thanks for cheering us all up! :P haha - cohesiont 09:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm formatting them back to the old way so people can use the image auto tagger. Does anyone have strong feelings that they should stay the new way? - cohesiont 10:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there's no need for the format to be changed.  I only used the new format because that was what was easily available from the tool; we should just ask the maker of the tool to add an option to output in the old format. Thanks for fixing it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As of 2006-04-01 16:27(replication lag), we have 13,029 (a decline of 635).  Continuing to make progress. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, there are also the 151 images in :Category:Images with no copyright tag. --Carnildo 04:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please add a note about that to the main page, so we can keep it small... JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you started the autotagging thing in production yet, or still testing? - cohesiont 06:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Large-scale testing right now, doing around 500 images a day.  I'm trying to build up a fairly comprehensive list of self-sourcing/non-sourcing/other templates before I fully automate it. --Carnildo 06:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, we might need to think about 2 things, when the category really starts filling up what should we do about it? Hopefully the tag itself will help a lot of people know they need to do something else, but what if they don't? Also, I don't think the untagged image tool will say they are untagged anymore if they have the  tag on them. (that sentence sounds crazy) maybe we could talk to meta:User:Duesentrieb and see if he could add it to the list of tags to ignore. - cohesiont 07:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the images upto 2005 are tagged now. We have untagged images under 10,000 according to our manual list.  Shyam (T/C) 20:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is very good news.  Congratulations! JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hm.  As of 2006-04-18 11:43 (massive toolserver lag) we have 15,284 - but all the spot checks I made had already been fixed, so I suspect technical problems on the toolserver are producing the oddly high number.  In any case, it's alarming. (5,000 more than we had last time I checked...) JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Replag seems to be hovering between five and seven days. --Carnildo 06:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real progress 

message: Is up and running, the tags  and  link  there as well as orphanbot, so if anyone feels like helping people that's the place :D - cohesiont 06:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Image legality questions]]