Wikipedia talk:Files for upload/2013-4

An FFU on Commons
I've proposed that a counterpart for WP:FFU be created at. For the proposal, see commons:COM:Requests_for_comment/Files_For_Upload -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Help us test the beta of a new tool for easy, assisted reviewing of Files for upload requests!
The Articles for creation helper script has been helping reviewers at WP:AfC/R for a while, and just recently we finished building the initial beta version of a similar tool... for FFU. However, we need your help to test it! Follow the instructions at WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script to install it, and after bypassing your cache you should see a [Review request] link in the header of every open request at FFU. Try it out, and please let us know what works&mdash;and what doesn't&mdash;as well as any suggestions or improvements; we're all ears. Hope to hear from you soon,  Theopolisme ( talk )  02:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where exactly you want comments/questions/concerns, but I figured I would place mine here. So far it seems to work well.  My current concern is there is a choice for "Update Wikipedia:Files for upload/recent: " that is pre-checked.  The recent template is only for free images, not logos, covers, etc (which comprises much of the uploads that are requested).  My concern is users who are not familiar with the process may not un-check that box, or understand what that is actually asking. It is my opinion (for whatever that is worth) that it either default to not being checked or the choice is formatted differently, like is the file free? if no, then thats all, if yes, then include in WP:FFU/recent.  That's my two cents and I appreciate the work you all have put into this.  -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  21:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Side note, I had not realized this until I after I sent the message, the form is not working for me.  I have filled it out with Accepted (already uploaded), with the file destination as Prado Framework logo 2013.png (no markup), I've tried with and without comment, Place  checked, no additional markup comment, uncheck update WP:FFU/recent, no description for WP:FFU/recent, and notify requester checked.  I'm using my MBP with the latest version of Firefox.  Thanks, -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  21:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, looks like a funky bug. I'll look into it. Thanks for your feedback about the menus as well.  Theopolisme ( talk )  00:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The bug you reported has been resolved; you will need to bypass your cache for it to take affect. Additionally, I've changed the wording of the FFU/recent checkbox per your suggestion. Thoughts? As always, thanks for all the helpful feedback,  Theopolisme ( talk )  05:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You are a rockstar. That is better wording than I could come up with, and it seems like the bug has been fixed.  I've tested it on my two MBPs in Safari, Chrome, and Firefox, and on my Windows 7 machine in IE and Firefox, no issues anywhere! -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  21:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Awesome, I'm glad you found it helpful! I worked hard on the script (it was one of my first real ventures into JavaScript programming), and it's great to see it being put into practice. Happy reviewing, and let me know if you run into anything that should be changed,  Theopolisme ( talk )  21:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Another (minor) request. When it adds a comment, it just adds it at the bottom and it ends up with stuff like (this). Since the script automatically makes a signature, can it also add an additional line (so it separates from previous comments) and/or adds a " : " before so that the comment drops below and indents under the request or comment. Thanks again for the tool, it really is very useful. Saves me lots of time from having to copy/paste and/or remember the tags we use. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 20:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've updated the code to add a colon before comments; this will be available in the beta script in the next few days. Thanks,  Theopolisme ( talk )  00:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Another one: I tried to mark one as "On Hold" due to AFD, and it would never process. See File:FFD Error Not process.png for my screenshots. Same settings as above.
 * Thanks for bug report and the (very helpful) screenshot -- the program was raising an error because it couldn't find a requestor to notify. I've fixed it so that it will simply display a "could not notify" message and keep reviewing as normal (albeit without any notification). Will be available in the beta (hopefully) in the coming days...  Theopolisme ( talk )  20:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Found another one...this one odd. Same as above for set up.  See File:FFD error wrong links.png.  When I select review request, it shows the links for the wrong image.  I don't know how this is caused.  Also, it will not let me submit the form. Also, please don't take my constant pestering as dissatisfaction. I'm very happy with the tool and the work you've done with it, and it is extremely useful to me. :) 01:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * *snaps fingers* try again :) (tl;dr problem was because the TOC disappeared (since there were <3 requests)...long story short, this messed up the way the script counted sections. Resolved by adding FORCETOC.)  Theopolisme ( talk )  02:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Works great. Thanks for the quick response and for being a rockstar ;) -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  02:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

When there is a request without a link, your tool automatically set it up to put the No URL response which is really nifty, except... when you are reviewing other requests, and don't go back and change it to "None/Ignore this URL" it duplicates a response. It took me a few mishaps to notice this was the reason for my messages duplicating. I don't know what could be done, what do you think? -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 18:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, whenever the script uploads a file to Files for upload/recent‎ it adds it to the top, and then removes the bottom. For some reason, the next time that the script is used, it adds in to the second item (instead of the first like it should). See difs here and here. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  21:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the "set on hold" issue in the source code; it will be pushed to the beta gadget soon (or you can use User:Theo's Little Bot/afch to access it now). Will look at the /recent problem soon...  Theopolisme ( talk )  23:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The /recent bug is fixed as well in the source code, and will be pushed to beta at the same time as the above fix.  Theopolisme ( talk )  23:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The "On hold (generic)" add the following text " This request has been placed on hold while pending a confirmation of permission. For further steps and how to proceed, please read Declaration of consent for all enquiries. If a response is not received within seven days, the request will be declined. ". This IMO not needed, and a separate option for this should be added. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, what would you suggest as an alternate label? Would "On hold (permission)" suffice?  Theopolisme ( talk )  01:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Or just simply "Permission" and "On hold (generic)" to "Generic". I mean they show if the user selects "Set on hold". Armbrust The Homunculus 02:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This will require a change to the underlying . I can look into it, though.  Theopolisme ( talk )  10:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What should the generic message be?  Theopolisme ( talk )  10:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Something like " Symbol wait.svg This request has been placed on hold. Maybe it could be called "Custom - reason bellow", it's already used in the "Decline" and "Comment" options. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If I add a new image to Files for upload/recent, than it leaves an empty line at the bottom of the gallery template. . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:50, :16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch, fixed in the source code (not yet available in on-wiki gadget though).  Theopolisme ( talk )  10:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The "upload with "flikr upload bot" button adds an extra %20 between https:// and toolserver.....
 * Good catch! Fixed in the source code. As always, keep the reports and suggestions coming,  Theopolisme ( talk )  23:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The script doesn't seem to be auto-updateing Files for upload/recent anymore, even when I check the box. It may be user error, but I tried on the previous seven files. Would you mind checking this for me? -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 15:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ fixed in source code  Theopolisme ( talk )  01:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It also seems to not be including comments that I add to the request itself. Example, on one of the requests, I selected accept (already uploaded) and made the comment that the secondary photo was not good enough quality to upload. That's odd too. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 20:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ fixed in source code as well  Theopolisme ( talk )  01:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

the script seems determined to keep tagging this as needing permission - despite me not telling the script to do so... -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  14:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Odd; I'll be happy to look into this. Are you saying that the script still marked it as "on hold" even when you manually deselected the "Set on hold" option?  Theopolisme ( talk )  01:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. On both occasions, I did not change the contents of the box. It may have just been the computer, but the issue stopped once the request had been reviewed; I was unable to do this as I can't access all pages during the day (I edit from behind a filter....) -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  08:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

it is still not updating Files for upload/recent for me, and the link to launch Flickr Upload Bot doesn't work either. Is there something I'm doing wrong, or do I not have the updated tool? -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 20:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Only the develop mirror has the updated code currently. I'll try to get a new beta pushed out soon.  Theopolisme ( talk )  22:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Aha, thanks! I figured that you could just give me a simple answer. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 22:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I recently noticed, that if the requester doesn't sign the request, than the script stalls at the first step and doesn't do, what it should. I'm also seeing, that if I accept multiple request by the same user, than the script edit conflicts with them-self, and only 1 file is posted on the requester's talk page. Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 11:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Archivebot
WHat was the reason why the archivebot (cluebot i believe) was turned off here (at the WP space page)? Shouldn't we add one again? mabdul 10:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. The accept and decline templates all use .  do you know of any reason why it shouldn't be enabled?  Theopolisme  ( talk )  13:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I turned it down, because it placed handled requests in the archive, but didn't remove them from the page (thus archiving the same requests multiple time) and the operator of the bot didn't respond to my querry about it. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not using another bot or give it a try again (just for the case the code was touched and accidentally fixed) mabdul 19:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know any alternative bot, which wouldn't archive open threads. The same bot could be tried again, but the probability it got accidentally fixed is very low. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Usually, it failing to remove them from the page after adding to the archive is a poorly formatted signature or some other inability to confirm that the move succeeded. There was a massive slow down on wiki and with the tools servers (likely the one this bot is on) that was probably causing timeout errors.  I suggest turning it back on, and if there is still an issue, ping me and I'll trouble shoot the issue and make sure that it gets acknowledged where-ever it needs to be.  Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There are some page versions, where the bot couldn't removed the archived threads: 1, 2, 3. I don't see any poorly formated signature and AFAIK there were no Toolserver issues in March 2011.

Restricted user uploading files - information only
Just a note to those fulfilling file upload requests: User:Ashton 29 is currently under restrictions regarding file uploads, and is obliged to pass all images that he wishes to upload through the FFU process (details at WP:RESTRICT). There is therefore no need to point out to him that, as a registered and confirmed user, he can do this himself - he can't. This statement is for information only, and should not prejudice any reviewers' response to his requested file uploads. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  14:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2014
Please correct the image title in:

File:Story Bridge, Brisbane (14964432888).jpg | Story Vridge, Brisbane illuminated in blue lights

"Vridge" -> "Bridge"

Cheers,

Ivan

Malenkovic (talk) 13:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ The "vridge" is now a "bridge". --Stefan2 (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2014
Remove semi-protected to protected because i cant edit the template even if semi-protected or protected

Meezypukka (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

❌ - it is not clear which page, or template, you are referring to, and we don't alter protection levels just because an editor is annoyed. - Arjayay (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)