Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Running Flickrripper After Sept 30th

I am still exporting photos from our group on Flickr to Commons (User:ayaita), and probably will be doing it until next week. I need to be whitelisted so no one remove the WLM template from these pictures. Thanks in advance Mónica J. Mora On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Platonides wrote: > O

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Quality images (Was: 300.000!!)

This is very helpful. Thanks. Roel On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 2:27 AM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Roel, > > The guidelines are here > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Quality_images_guidelines > > Nomination instructions are here > http://commons.wikimedia.

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Why deadlines exist

On 05/10/12 20:46, Cristian Consonni wrote: > 2012/10/5 Platonides : >> We should clarify the "deadline rules" next year, and make clear that >> there will be a bot with an axe for any image whose upload wasn't >> finished before midnight. > > (LoL, bots with axes) > > I like: > * the idea of cla

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Judging System Signup

+1 Cristian On Friday, October 5, 2012, Cristian Consonni wrote: > 2012/10/1 Nicu Buculei >: > > - also I have to acknowledge I was confused at first with the position of > > the "accept" and "reject" icons, a few times I clicked on the wrong > ones, I > > expected them to be below the pictures b

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Uploader stats

Erik sent it from start with a copy to the mailing list :-) but indeed, I selected ''reply to all'', strange he didn't send a copy to him... Itzik - Sent from my mobile device On Oct 5, 2012 10:30 PM, "Matthew Roth" wrote: > Hi Itzik, > I don't know if Erik was on that thread. I'm cc'ing him he

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Uploader stats

Hi Itzik, I don't know if Erik was on that thread. I'm cc'ing him here. -Matthew On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Itzik Edri wrote: > Hi Erik, > > Thanks for sharing that. I know tomasz plan to share also mobile upload > stats that could be interesting... > > Take into consideration that in Isra

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Rating the photos

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Lodewijk wrote: > I assume with remove, you only mean that you don't consider them for a > prize? (that is a fair reasoning I guess, under the 'usefulness' > principle). yeah, I second that, I am all for keeping lowres shots of things we dont have pics of otherwis

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Uploader stats

And also some (or a lot of) pictures could be deleted in the future due to different causes, like non freedom of panorama, copyvios, images that don't show a monument or show a monument from a country that doesn't participate, etc. I hope this figure will not be so high but we must delete and i

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Uploader stats

Hi Erik, Thanks for sharing that. I know tomasz plan to share also mobile upload stats that could be interesting... Take into consideration that in Israel people still uploading photos until the 15th. It's not thousands of photos per day, but still can effect the finall number a little... Itzik

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] [Wlm-global-org] Fwd: Uploader stats

Thanks a lot Erik! Just two remarks: When looking only at WLM2012, that the WLM2011 participants were overrepresented. That means... these people returned! That says a lot about how they enjoyed the competition. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WLM_uploaders_2010-2012_log.png One reason for

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Judging System Signup

2012/10/1 Nicu Buculei : > - also I have to acknowledge I was confused at first with the position of > the "accept" and "reject" icons, a few times I clicked on the wrong ones, I > expected them to be below the pictures but they were at the top; I think this has been fixed by adding the colored se

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Quality images (Was: 300.000!!)

Hi Roel, The guidelines are here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Quality_images_guidelines Nomination instructions are here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Quality_images_candidates#How_to_nominate Hope that helps WSC On 5 October 2012 14:55, Roel Balingit wrote: > Sorry f

[Wiki Loves Monuments] Fwd: Uploader stats

FYI, thought you would find the stats below to be interesting. -- Forwarded message -- From: Erik Zachte Date: Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:37 AM Subject: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Uploader stats To: Lodewijk , Maarten Dammers < maar...@mdammers.nl>, Platonides , Wiki Loves Monuments Photo

[Wiki Loves Monuments] Uploader stats

First congrats for the overall success of WLM 2012, and also for the awesome stats at http://toolserver.org/~emijrp/wlm/stats.php Here are some extra stats about uploaders, with focus on new vs experienced contributors: These data are provisional, while we vet input further (last chart seems t

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Rating the photos

Op 5-10-2012 14:57, Lodewijk schreef: Hi Aktron, I assume with remove, you only mean that you don't consider them for a prize? (that is a fair reasoning I guess, under the 'usefulness' principle). Tamara: I would suggest to leave it up to the jury, as long as they keep the criteria in mind.

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Quality images (Was: 300.000!!)

Thanks Yaroslav :) Roel On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: > On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 21:55:55 +0800, Roel Balingit wrote: > >> Sorry for my stupid question, how do we nominate entries to be rated >> as such? >> >> Roel >> WLM Philippines >> >> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 9:46 PM,

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Quality images (Was: 300.000!!)

On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 21:55:55 +0800, Roel Balingit wrote: Sorry for my stupid question, how do we nominate entries to be rated as such? Roel WLM Philippines On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Tomasz W. Kozłowski wrote: Update: the number of Quality images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 has surpas

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] certificates for the winners

Hi Lodewijk, all, I suggest to add a quote from the jury-report stating why the photo is selected for a prize. Kind regards, Els 2012/9/28 Lodewijk > Hi all, > > Last year an often heard question was whether we would offer certificates > for the winners. Although I wouldn't want one myself ne

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Quality images (Was: 300.000!!)

Sorry for my stupid question, how do we nominate entries to be rated as such? Roel WLM Philippines On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Tomasz W. Kozłowski wrote: > Update: the number of Quality images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 > has surpassed 750 today (currently 754). > > If we keep up the pac

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Quality images (Was: 300.000!!)

Update: the number of Quality images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 has surpassed 750 today (currently 754). If we keep up the pace, we'll reach 1,000 Quality images in about twelve days, ie. around October 17. Whee! -- Tomasz W. Kozłowski a.k.a. [[user:odder]] _

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] certificates for the winners

Hi I'll like to have the certificate. rexford On Friday, October 5, 2012, Tomasz Ganicz wrote: > 2012/10/5 Lodewijk >: > > Maybe now the contest is finished, someone feels an urge to share > experience > > or volunteer? :) > > > > Last year we have sent certificates to our winners. It was creat

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] certificates for the winners

2012/10/5 Lodewijk : > Maybe now the contest is finished, someone feels an urge to share experience > or volunteer? :) > Last year we have sent certificates to our winners. It was created by Odder with some my feedback. I don't want to send it on public list as it contains Odder's facimile - but i

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] certificates for the winners

Maybe now the contest is finished, someone feels an urge to share experience or volunteer? :) Lodewijk 2012/9/28 Lodewijk > Hi all, > > Last year an often heard question was whether we would offer certificates > for the winners. Although I wouldn't want one myself necessarily, it would > be nic

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Rating the photos

Hi Aktron, I assume with remove, you only mean that you don't consider them for a prize? (that is a fair reasoning I guess, under the 'usefulness' principle). Tamara: I would suggest to leave it up to the jury, as long as they keep the criteria in mind. Every country can make their own judgement

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Rating the photos

I do believe, if the detail is encyclopedically valuable and illustates something important about the monument (i. e. inside of the cupola of a church) then it should be preserved. We in WLM CZ however remove most of the details, because they do not fill this criterium.    I also think it is up

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Rating the photos

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Tamara Petrovic wrote: > We got a lot of photos which show monuments' details, so I don't know > whether to point out to the jury to eliminate those or not? I mean, do the > winner photos have to show the objects in whole? There is no rule about this. If the detail

[Wiki Loves Monuments] Rating the photos

Hi all, We got a lot of photos which show monuments' details, so I don't know whether to point out to the jury to eliminate those or not? I mean, do the winner photos have to show the objects in whole? The other thing is we got superb photos that are of low resolution (~1000x768) - should they be

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Vandalism by Sreejithk2000

> > I suggest to have the factual copyright discussion on Wikimedia Commons. >> Otherwise it is kind of pointless, because the admins still will not see it >> :) >> > I don't know appropriate page in Commons for such discussion. If you know > please help, >

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Why deadlines exist

On 05/10/12 09:27, Lodewijk wrote: > Hi all, > > a few remarks from this discussion: > * The suggestions by Polimerek sound really good - although I'm not sure > if it is viable to set up such an extra banner system (it's quite a lot > of work). If we can use "magic banners" next year, it would

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Why deadlines exist

In my opinion it would be good to understand the behaviour. The 30 September was Sunday and probaly someone was out to take pictures, afterwards he tried to upload them and the upload was slow. In my opinion it would be good to understand if this person has started to upload at 11:55pm or this pe

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Vandalism by Sreejithk2000

2012/10/5 Lodewijk > Hi, > > I suggest to have the factual copyright discussion on Wikimedia Commons. > Otherwise it is kind of pointless, because the admins still will not see it > :) > > I don't know appropriate page in Commons for such discussion. If you know please help, > Andrij: I would a

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Vandalism by Sreejithk2000

2012/10/5 Maarten Dammers : > I agree. FOP issues are never obvious copyright violations and should never > be speedy deleted. > Actually there is discussion about it on Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Aeou It is interesting that the picture

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Why deadlines exist

hmm, good point! The unfriendlyness could perhaps be tackled by a message on the talkpage of the uploader? (or did that already happen?). Also replacing it with an alternative template "it was uploaded for WLM, but unfortunately outside the allowed timeslot" in friendly wordings would be a good way

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Why deadlines exist

Most concerns are for removing the WLM template, for any reason, by bot or not. It can be seen as an unfriendly behaviour to exclude a file for the contest. In fact, the submission was intented for WLM, successfully or not, as the template reads. A solution is to keep the template with a note,

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Vandalism by Sreejithk2000

I agree. FOP issues are never obvious copyright violations and should never be speedy deleted. Maarten Op 4 okt 2012 om 23:54 heeft Андрій Бондаренко het volgende geschreven:\ But we have no evidence that this was copyvio. The decision is not transparent. 2012/10/5 Platonides On 0

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Why deadlines exist

Hi all, a few remarks from this discussion: * The suggestions by Polimerek sound really good - although I'm not sure if it is viable to set up such an extra banner system (it's quite a lot of work). * There will '''always''' be people just too late... So lets not get discouraged by that. * Pete: y

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Vandalism by Sreejithk2000

Hi, I suggest to have the factual copyright discussion on Wikimedia Commons. Otherwise it is kind of pointless, because the admins still will not see it :) Andrij: I would also suggest to not call this kind of good faith vandalism - that is highly inappropriate. It may be unconstuctive, not accor

Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Vandalism by Sreejithk2000

I am sorry to read this thread. Good luck to all of you involved! Commuicating this to the uploaders must be very difficult, who I am sure will have trouble comprehending the finesses of the speedy deletion arguments. Jane 2012/10/5 Roel Balingit > I've had the same experience in the Philippines