Commons talk:Graphic Lab/Archive/2013

SVG

Which section of the lab does .svg edits? We need one similar to File:PDmaybe-icon.svg for Template:Not-free-US-FOP, Template:Non-free graffiti, and similar templates. The one now is PD/Copyright but what we need is Copyright depends on jurisdiction, future case law, or future DCMA etc. I was thinking of either the scales of justice or a broken infinity symbol: Category:Unbalanced scales of justice, Category:Infinity. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The illustration workshop is your best choice. – JBarta (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, moved to there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Canoe1967 (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Archiving requests

The link below was inserted after the thread was started. Penyulap ☏ 16:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

[Related thread: User_talk:Patrick87#Manual_Archival_in_Graphics_Lab] --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

---

I've reverted an edit here because too many of those requests haven't been finalised according to the requesters. The requester themselves, not an artist, needs to express satisfaction with a request before it can be archived, unless there is a wide consensus AND a significant amount of time has passed. Penyulap ☏ 05:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted again, as I'm not cleaning up other people's messes. The archived sections don't show the requesters are happy in all cases, or an explanation of why the section is being archived. Just because one of the artists is apparently happy is meaningless. It needs to be the person who asked. Then after a long time, if there is no response and no art, mark it as stale. If it is in an article because the requester put it there, say so. If you've replaced the image yourself, you can't call it done. Penyulap ☏ 12:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)The requests I archived were all marked as resolved. Where I marked them as resolved personally, I checked if everything was done satisfactory and (if the requester didn't respond in a long time) I checked if the images were incorporated into their respective articles (when they were not I did this myself to complete the request).

The only purpose of the {{resolved}} template is to mark requests that are resolved satisfactory and can be archived. If some editors are using this template wrongly, please inform them. I'll undo your undo (actually I'm angry that I now even have to justify for simple tasks like archival). Please think about what {{resolved}} means and it should get clear those sections can be archived.

If there really are requests that are not yet resolved satisfactory yet being marked as resolved (you only write this, I don't believe you though) feel free to restore only those sections and remove the template. --Patrick87 (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of Riga doesn't show why it's been archived for example. Penyulap ☏ 12:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Everything is finished here. The request was stale for a long time. I did it by chance when searching our maintenance categories. What do you think is not shown clearly enough? --Patrick87 (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Your edit war and edit summary indicate you're unaware of the discussion. Hey, maybe you're new here ? Well, there is a template called STALE. that's what we use for stale requests, and leave them sitting around for a while before archiving them. This isn't McDonalds, and it's not en.wiki thank God. Take it easy, you don't need to get so excited that you go the 3RR like you just did, chill out. Penyulap ☏ 13:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this "friendly" contribution! I don't know how {{Stale}} matters regarding this discussion? Besides it is only used once in the Illustration Workshop (you might be confused with McDonalds, errh, en.wiki because the template is automatically applied there by a bot after a month or so?) I did never ever archive any request that had {{Stale}} or no status template applied to it at all. I only archived {{Resolved}} requests. All other requests sit around to infinity here (as long as nobody else archives them). --Patrick87 (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks to me like you didn't wait for a response from the requester, you seem to have made the assumption that your work was enough and closed the request yourself. Has the requester even been asked to comment ? I think you missed out on that one as well. Requests like that are left open for a while, in case someone else wants to make a contribution. Penyulap ☏ 14:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

So it's all about this single request? Really?

To answer your comment: Actually I waited for a response for over three weeks now (the request was resolved on 2013-05-31). So if anybody had any concerns that it wasn't resolved he could have removed the template by now, I think this was more than enough time. Since you might have noticed the request is 14 months old, so I could imagine the original requester even forgot about it. I could have left him a message on his talk page, yes, but I don't think anybody in graphics lab is obliged to do so. Especially since in this case the request was clearly resolved (funnily I have a head myself, so I don't always need the requesters acknowledgement to know when a request is done). --Patrick87 (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

1st off, archiving a request that's been up for 14 months seems reasonable to me. It wasn't deleted from the wiki, it was moved to an archive where editors who might decide to take interest can still find it if they wish. Perhaps if Penyulap has something to contribute to the file she could just go ahead and do so, or if concerned for the interest of the original poster, go ahead and contact that poster to see if they are actually concerned before reverting another editor's attempt to clean up the page. Something tangible instead of hypothetical.

As to dealing with the issue in general, perhaps set up a bot as we've done at the Commons Photography lab. See talk page thread and related notices on the main Photo workshop page. User:McZusatz —who helped set it up— seems quite friendly and would likely be willing to help. --Kevjonesin (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

p.s.— I would generally consider it best practice to post a note to the requester's talk page encouraging them to either mark the request as "resolved" or to provide further feedback as to how it may become so before flagging it "resolved" oneself. Especially if a request has been up for less than a month or so. At the Wikipedia Photography workshop we have a handy template for such. --Kevjonesin (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd not vote against using a bot for archiving. However the throughput is quite low in Commons Illustration Workshop (compared to e.g. the one on English Wikipedia), so it's not totally necessary either.

Fun fact: The same Penyulap who found the automatic archival suggestion to "sound great" in Photography Workshop (that is now archiving resolved request after 21 days) is now rebuking me for manually archiving a resolved request after 23 days. What did I do wrong compared to the bot? --Patrick87 (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Penyulap was hoping for 30 days —or more. 21 is a compromise. I suspect, given her druthers, that Penyulap would opt for one single long continuous request page without any archiving at all. For some reason offering an opportunity for other graphists to re-edit an old request which has already been addressed seems to take priority over making space to better view recent and ongoing ones. She's special. Personally, I'm willing to make some allowance for her predilection as long as it's done within reason. Given my druthers, I'd likely set it at 7 days. The default is 3. --Kevjonesin (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• p.p.s.— I just looked at the edit history in detail, as I see it Patrick87 made an edit (archiving stale & resolved requests threads) and then Penyulap reverted. Then Patrick87 reverted and provided a detailed edit summary with a sensible suggestion to isolate (be specific) which threads were found questionable for archiving instead of reverting en masse and invited further discussion on his talk page (should have been on the Illustration workshop's talk page but was a move in the right direction —i.e. away from debating via edit summary and reversion). Then Penyulap reverted again (2RR) without giving other editors a chance to weigh in on consensus. Patrick87 then reverts (2RR) along with another detailed edit summary asking to move to (here) the general Commons:Graphic Lab talk page. Where —ironically— Penyulap sees fit to make the comment...

"Take it easy, you don't need to get so excited that you go the 3RR like you just did, chill out."

...when in actual fact —as is clear in history— Penyulap is the one a step ahead on the 3RR trail.

Penyulap, if you disagree with this statement, please, feel free to consult an admin for their view on the topic. Or revert again and a consultation will be provided for you. Otherwise, perhaps some introspection may be in order?

--Kevjonesin (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I support archiving, archiving is not the problem. I just want to be confident that the requesters are not being argued with and ignored. For sections where it is NOT clear that the requester is happy, then it should be marked with a reason when it is marked as resolved. You add it to the template where it says 1=.

For many of those sections it is not clear why the request is considered resolved. All it seems to say is that Patrick87 considers his own ideas to be final. Lately he argues with requesters and artists alike, so that doesn't inspire any confidence in his abilities to understand what he is doing. The edit summary alone says he pays no attention. This discussion started by me immediately appears to have escaped his attention if the summaries he's leaving are any indication. I'm referring to this discussion in the history, and he appears completely oblivious until he's gone 3RR.

For the Boron spectra request this month, someone made a simple request at the village pump, and I say sure, we can do that. Then Patrick is like "No we can't." and argue argue argue with everyone. Argues before it is done, while it IS being done, after it's done. it was a simple request that obviously 3 different people could do at least, because 3 people did. So if he is saying that this and that and the other thing can't be done and archiving it, obviously it needs to be checked by someone who IS reading (better than he reads the history page).

We HAVE stale templates, that is what they are for. The resolved template has optional comments, that is what the comments are for. If it is not apparent that the REQUESTER has said it is done, then don't just bloody well say 'it's done' like you have a shred of credibility when you don't. And Don't argue with requesters. Customer is always right, requester is always right. This is not a drama board, and there is no blooming big rush like it's the end of the world tomorrow. (Edit conflict)x2 because you lot type too fast.

Don't bother trying to pull that introspection crap on me, or suggest that it was someone else's idea to talk. BULLSHIT. B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T. This section's very first comment, and timestamp, was done by ME. anyone can see that, you just scroll up. Penyulap ☏ 19:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap, Sorry if I implied "that it was someone else's idea to talk". I was going off the history page edit summaries rather than the talk page timestamps. Regardless, Penyulap, it was clearly you who escalated to edit war level by double reverting within a short period of time. Not allowing for consensus to be reached on the very threads which you initiated. Hence, I suggest introspection. If this is all "BULLSHIT. B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T." I suggest you consider acting upon your convictions and making another revert. Or is there perhaps some reason you'd prefer not to do that? Like already knowing @#%$ well how an admin would respond to such. You're the one hanging on the edge of 3RR. It might be nice to own up to it.

Technically some of the archived requests would likely have been more accurately tagged with {{Stale}} instead of {{Resolved}} before archiving. A hair-splitting distinction at this point (i.e. pettifog) as most had been around awhile regardless and were ripe to be archived. If you have specific threads which you feel should be re-posted for specific reasons please feel free to go ahead and make it known instead of reverting en masse and expecting others to play at guessing which ones you differed with and why. If you are truly concerned that the interests of some of the original posters may have been overlooked, please, by all means, invite them to join this conversation. Of course if they are actually still following the relevant threads they'll find out soon enough and have an opportunity to sort things out for themselves.

I'm not proposing that Patrick87 couldn't have applied a bit more finesse. Used some "stale" tags and left a few talk page nudges, etc. Hopefully, he'll do so in the future. I just don't see any harm done in this case at this time as is. Double reverting en masse seems much clumsier than anything Patrick87 did, IMHO. --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This will make it quite easy for people to make up their own mind about who's been doing the edit warring, you know, so they don't have to listen to hype and crap and so on, they can just see for themselves. Penyulap ☏ 16:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, really? This is getting ridiculous! Now you even invest time to create factually wrong diagrams that should illustrate I'm the bad boy who dared to do necessary maintenance tasks? Shame on me.

I admit Kevjonesin got it a little wrong regarding the order of talk page messages (actually you posted to my talk page first – while reverting my edit; and you posted to this talk page first – while reverting my edit; every time not even considering to give me some time for an explanation). By contrast I asked you with every of my edit summaries and every comment to get this sorted out on the respective talk pages in a friendly manner instead of blatantly reverting my useful edit (which you failed).

Any way, it seems to me we reached an evil version of en:WP:Bikeshed. Do you still know what we are discussing here? This has nothing to do with the initial problem anymore. You're throwing in one accusation after the other escalating the issue more and more — but what for? What is the point of this pointless and hostile dispute?

If you have something useful to contribute then please do so. I'm open on any proposals on how to improve the currently manual archival system in the illustration workshop. I'm open to restore selected sections from the archive if there was additional need for discussion on any of them. Otherwise I'm regarding this discussion finished. I have better things to do than arguing with you who posted what five seconds earlyer on whose talk page before doing which revert. --Patrick87 (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Sad Peny, sad and misleading. It's "3RR" (Three Revert Rule) not "3RoCR" (Three Removal-of-Content-to-archive Rule). Once again, if you disagree with my interpretation of the guideline I suggest you consult an admin for their opinion on the matter.

I agree with Patrick's "bikeshed" observation. Concern for the original posters of the archived threads is not the impression I'm receiving from Penyulap at this point. Sigh... --Kevjonesin (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It's occurred to me to qualify a bit. I do find it worth noting that Penyulap started off very polite on both this page and on Patrick87's talk page (see link at the top of this thread) and seemed quite considerate in tone and intent.

However, my own inclination towards archiving lays more closely in-line with Patricks87's. And I still feel the double en masse revert was a 'battle' move. Especially as Patrick87 had stated in his reply to Penyulap (on his talk page) that he wouldn't object to specific individual threads being reverted. A compromise that would have allowed for some of his efforts to be retained. As opposed to unilaterally discarding them. A meeting in the middle. Alas, such was not the route that was chosen. Perhaps in the future? --Kevjonesin (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Perhelion (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Automatic archival of Graphic Lab requests

Dear Graphists,

resolved requests are slowly but steadily accumulating on our workshop pages, cluttering them needlessly and concealing requests that need our attention. Since manual archival is a tedious task it was often neglected in the past adding to the problem. I therefore propose we introduce a consistent and functional system for automatic archival of requests in all Graphic Lab workshops.

To find a solution that fits our needs best your valued input is needed:

1. To determine the general need for automatic archival please comment on the first question below. I think this is rather uncontroversial, but if you feel like this could cause any serious problems please don't hesitate to share your concerns.
2. We'll have to decide on a system for automatic archival. I evaluated our options and was talking to bot operators regarding the fitness of their bots. I've found two matches for our requirements which I'll describe in the second section below where you can decide on the system of your choice.
3. General discussion not directly related to the two items above should go into the third section below.

Please take the chance and voice your opinion! --Patrick87 (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Perhelion (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you like the idea of automatic archival of requests?

No, not really. Automatic archival can kiss my ass, or, more accurately, the robots can all line up and kiss my ass. There are far too many variables to judge for this to be an automated job. Penyulap ☏ 11:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think any bot currently offers that functionality (and I don't know if you'd like it if one would ). Being aware of your concerns, please note this is not an issue of automatic archival! The bot archives requests which are marked as "resolved" – nothing else.

So the problem we should address to account for you concerns is when the resolved tag should actually be applied. If users apply the template wrongly we can neither blame the bot for it nor would it be a solution to iron out the wrongly applied template by not archiving at all. Therefore feel free to open a new section below where we can build consensus for a guideline on how to use the "resolved" tag. Additionally you can always remove the tag if you think a request was not resolved satisfactory. --Patrick87 (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

what are you on about ? there is a section with the title "Do you like the idea of automatic archival of requests?" and I say NO, and now you're going on about "please note this is not an issue of automatic archival". What the fuck is it about ? it says "automatic archival" in the section title, and that is in a larger section that starts with "automatic archiving". Who is responsible for this nonsense ? Who wrote these section titles ? whose been fiddling with this proposal.

wait, wait, (Penyulap puts a plastic bag over their head for 68 seconds and the hallucinations set in) Oh ok !! Yeaaaaaa This ia a greeeat imageee  Support Featrues image should be it. ahhhhhh. Penyulap ☏ 12:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hang on! wait just a minute, this is not featured picture proposals, this is a section about "automatic archival" of course it is about automatic archival that's why it's in all the titles, automatic archival sucks, and I've outlined WHY it sucks. That's the point of having a discussion, to outline why the proposal sucks and blows at the same time. Penyulap ☏ 12:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm giving up on you (again). What we've got here, is failure to communicate. Maybe somebody else is able to communicate to you why marking as "resolved" is the first step, while archiving is the second step. Those steps should be independent to prevent fiascos like the one we had here last week. If the first step is done correctly the second step can't be controversial. This whole section is about the second step. --Patrick87 (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Perhelion (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Which system for automatic archival fits our needs best?

There are currently two bots that would fit our requirements:

• SpBot which is operated by Euku who is an administrator on German Wikipedia. His bot is heavily used there but also active on many other projects, including Wikidata and Commons. The Photography Workshop already set up automatic archival by this bot recently so most of the work would already be done and we'd be able do get started immediately. I'm sure those guys already can share some experiences. This is my personal preference since it's simple, configurable, and ready-to-go.

What it does / How it works:

• SpBot archives sections which are marked with {{Section resolved}}.
• We can set how many days SpBot should delay archival after the template was applied to make sure all requests are completed satisfactory.
• By design {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} has to be dated with a signature and looks like
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Patrick87 (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  but we can style it to our needs freely using a template if you should not like the look.

• DyceBot (en) which is operated by Dycedarg. His bot is currently used for archival in the Graphics Lab on English Wikipedia. It's specifically made for the needs of the English Illustration Workshop, which has a considerably higher number of request than we have but also a much lower success rate (which might be caused by the way archival is done! See bullet point on "stale sections" below.). Note that DyceBot is not yet active in any other project or on any other pages since it has to be specifically adjusted for each use. Dycedarg would be willing to do the changes for us and ask for permission to run the bot on Commons if we decided to use his bot though. However this will take some time and Dycedarg would have to invest time to get everything running.

What it does / How it works:

• DyceBot archives sections which are marked with {{Resolved}}. This is the one big advantage since we are already using this template and wouldn't have to change anything.
• DyceBot archives resolved sections after a fixed amount of time (starting from the last comment in the section). We won't be able to set this since it's hardcoded in the bots code. Dycedarg might allow us to set parameters through a template, but again this needs considerable effort from his side and would take time, so don't rely on this function at this time.
• Additionally DyceBot automatically marks sections which were not edited in a long time with {{Stale}}, and attempts to archive those stale sections. Both time intervals are again hardcoded as explained above.
• Archiving is done onto one archive page put separated into two sections: "resolved" and "unresolved" request. Best look at June's archive of Illustration Workshop on English Wikipedia to get the idea.

This section was archived on a request by: Perhelion (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Further thoughts on automatic archival?

 Support I think it can be pretty safely said that just about everyone likes the idea of automatic archival for requests. If anyone has the technical ability to set up an archiving bot, I propose and suggest they just go ahead and do it. Get it done and we can niggle over details later. – JBarta (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your confidence! I'd be happy to go for it and implement to my likes, but I learned that there are some users that virtually object every decision, so I'm aiming for some slight consent at least.

Regarding the details: You can already discuss them above. Since those are two quite different approaches with some delicate differences it'd be better to decide before actually deploying anything. --Patrick87 (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The way to get something done is to just do it. The way to get nothing done is to talk about it. – JBarta (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Far too many requests are being archived too soon, before the established artists have had time to respond, this is not mellow, this is not supposed to be a drama board, and the aggressive archiving is inappropriate. I don't give a rats arse what people do on en.wiki, this is not en.wiki. The absurd suggestion that requests are "concealing requests that need our attention" is contrary to the intent of this nonsense and an insult to anyone's intelligence. If people are incapable or incompetent, then get a tutorial rather than suggest it can't be done. Learn how to do things properly rather than argue with the requester. Get some actual experience instead of quickly archiving turds rather than leaving the request open so that everyone has the opportunity to do a proper job if they wish to. Hiding incompetence seeks to degrade the previously high standards that the Commons GFX lab set.

In regards to bots, I'm quite capable of writing bots now, and can program one to run alongside my existing bot PALZ9000, however, input is required from the other established artists here first, and considering the multitude of reasons why requests should or shouldn't be marked as resolved, and the requests that should be left open for some time, it's doubtful that 'one size fits all' as far as archiving goes. Meaningful input should be obtained for how long requests should be left open before being marked resolved, how long they should remain after being resolved, and how long stale requests should remain. I would suggest 12 months on the last one at the very least. 'Concealing requests' ? there is no problem finding sections on the page, the only thing people want to conceal is their bickering with requesters, other artists, and the turds they upload. Lifting your game until you're proud to leave your comments and work on display is the proper thing to do. Penyulap ☏ 23:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

 Support We already implemented this in the photography workshop. It works fine. Just go ahead and copy paste the Bot-header to the other boards. Keep in mind to set the "age" parameter to sth. greater than 14days and also leave a note for the editors to only mark sections resolved that really should be archived. --McZusatz (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

 Support I like having it in place at the Photo workshop and feel that prompt archiving of requests that have already been addressed by at least one graphist helps to keep the pages readily navigable. IMHO, it's more valuable to default to facilitating new requests than it is to emphasize opportunities for multiple graphists to edit a single request. Those who are interested in readdressing files worked on by others can always 'click' into the archive if they so desire. --Kevjonesin (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Perhelion (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

"resolved" vs "section resolved"

I've been noticing "section resolved" being added to requests in addition to "resolved". Is this really necessary? "Resolved" doesn't do the job well enough? It's short and sweet and been doing the job nicely. Of course, maybe I'm wrong and maybe such redundancy is a good thing. Actually, maybe we should use a third tag... "section definitely resolved"... – JBarta (talk) 05:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This was added by the Photography Workshop people who recently introduced automatic archival by SpBot and is directly related to the proposal above. SpBot archives sections marked with {{section resolved}} but it doesn't recognize {{resolved}}. It's probaly best to just see how the above request goes and then switch to only one "resolved" marker as appropriate. Most likely we'll simply switch to using {{section resolved}} in all workshops and abandon {{resolved}}. If people feel like it we could even change the former to look exactly like the latter, but for the sake of consistency I'd just use it "as is" or with only few changes to the wording. --Patrick87 (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Fuck huge hideous templates. small is sweet. That's what has always worked quite well and I'd rather just do the archiving manually than see this shit everywhere. Penyulap ☏ 10:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You're adopting the wrong tone again Peyulap, please calm down. As I said just before (I don't know if you over-read it in your excitement): If we don't like the look it can be easily customized, even to look exactly as the currently used template.

Additionally please note that the wording of {{section resolved}} does exactly what you always want: Encourage people to reopen requests and to improve upon them if they think something might not be satisfactory! --Patrick87 (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC) --Patrick87 (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, given the aggressive disruption that you and Kevjonesin have been inflicting on the formerly mellow Graphics lab in the last few months, it's a perfectly reasonable tone. Your over-aggressive archiving, arbitrary splitting of centralised talkpages, the mandatory arguing with requesters and artists, I'd say I'm as mellow as any reasonable person can expect me to be given the current circumstances. Penyulap ☏ 11:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Dycebot works well on the en Photography workshop. A day or two after a request is marked "resolved", it gets archived. After a period of time (21 days?) any request that has recieved no attention is marked stale and a couple days after that it is archived. It works well and from what I can see has no complaints. If someone doesn't think a request is resolved, they can remove the tag. If anyone wants to view old requests, done or not, they can look in the archives. It's consistent and (when it's working) gets the job done well. From what I can see here, there is only one editor that seems to have a problem with automatic archiving, and given his history around here, his views can be given their due consideration and then we move on. I think if someone has the technical knowledge (Patrick87?) to set up Dycebot here as it is set up on the en Photography Workshop, just do it already, be done with it, and we move on to other things. – JBarta (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Sadly it's only this "one editor" that is keeping me from doing it already and who was the reason I tried to present the proposal here in all it's details. The last time I did something even less controversial (archiving resolved requests) he started a needless edit warring (see above). Therefore I got a little cautious and wanted input from some other graphists first. Sadly exactly this "one editor" is leading the discussion into an nonconstructive direction again (at times he's willing to discuss at all). It's hard if not impossible to get to a consent with him. --Patrick87 (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

How is he "keeping you from doing it"? – JBarta (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The last time he kept reverting my edits, and I wouldn't wonder if he did again when there was no clear consent before. It's sad and irrational but its true. --Patrick87 (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm starting to do what I hate to do... and that's repeat myself. If you are able to set up Dycebot for the commons photography workshop, just do so. Consensus does not require having every single editor on board. Penyulap seems to be intractable on this issue and that's his prerogative. But that doesn't mean nothing happens without his approval. I don't know how much experience you have with Penyulap, but "The Penyulap Show" has been going on for some time and will gum up the works of anything if you give it half a chance. Again (sigh) just do it. – JBarta (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Perhelion (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Automatic crop

Hi. Is there any tool available for bulk cropping of images? Let's take this series as an example: these files ahould all be cropped by 55px at bottom. //  Gikü  said  done  Tuesday, 15 October 2013 11:59 (UTC)

No tool that I'm aware of. That said, we had a similar problem a while back that was solved with a bot. I would contact Rybec... if he's still around, he may be able to modify that bot to handle your images. – JBarta (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Perhelion (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)