User talk:Zhuyifei1999/Archive 5

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

A question on the Picasa Bot

Is the picasa bot OK? I was just wondering since above it marked the first image it was scheduled to mark on on June 13 but placed all the other images from June 13 onwards into picasa human review. But the first image it passed has the same picasa author source and camera model as all the other images it placed into picasa human review on June 13.

Just curious. Nothing more. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Something odd going on I'll look into it. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Update: The three temp files (I symlinked them to [1] [2]

[3]) have exact same look and resolution, but none of them are identical in file size:

  • temp_picasa_image_full.jpg: 487048 bytes
  • temp_picasa_image.jpg: 486160 bytes
  • temp_wiki_image.jpg: 487149 bytes
diff --text temp_picasa_image_full.jpg temp_wiki_image.jpg returns:
1c1
< �����JFIF�������ExifII�1��>2���E;��Yi���`Google2013:05:09 12:20:21Picasa���0220��������� ��!�2006:12:23 22:53:121176c57f28640201733d7ca7c331efd7���0100���� �����X����rhttp://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/<?xpacket begin="" id="W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d"?> <x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="XMP Core 5.1.2"> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> <rdf:Description rdf:about="" xmlns:xmp="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/" xmlns:exif="http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmp:ModifyDate="2013-05-09T12:20:21+02:00" xmp:CreatorTool="Google" exif:DateTimeOriginal="2006-12-23T22:53:12+01:00"> <dc:creator> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>Picasa</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </dc:creator> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF> </x:xmpmeta>   <?xpacket end="w"?>��vPhotoshop 3.08BIM��>������Z�������20061223��<
                                                                                               225312+0100��P�Picasa8BIM�%�����B=�'ݽV�����C������������������������������������������������������������������C��������������������������������������������������������������������X� ��"���������������������
---
> �����JFIF�������ExifII�1��>2���E;��Yi���`Picasa2013:05:09 12:20:21Picasa���0220��������� ��!�2006:12:23 22:53:121176c57f28640201733d7ca7c331efd7���0100���� �����X�����http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/<?xpacket begin="" id="W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d"?> <x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="XMP Core 5.1.2"> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> <rdf:Description rdf:about="" xmlns:xmp="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/" xmlns:exif="http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmp:ModifyDate="2013-05-09T12:20:21+02:00" exif:DateTimeOriginal="2006-12-23T22:53:12+01:00"> <dc:creator> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>Picasa</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </dc:creator> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF> </x:xmpmeta>                                                                                                                                 <?xpacket end="w"?>��vPhotoshop 3.08BIM��>������Z�������20061223��<
                                                                                          225312+0100��P�Picasa8BIM�%�����B=�'ݽV�����C������������������������������������������������������������������C��������������������������������������������������������������������X� ��"���������������������
I'll assume this is some changes related to Picasa/Google --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • OK. It is not a bot error then. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
    That's just my best guess. If the reviews of future uploads fail oddly, please notify me and I'll see if there are more errors than I expected. :) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Just a final question. When the picasa bot says for an image: "Unable to confirm license, marking for human review (license matches and is valid - but Commons version is of a different size than the Picasa version, may have been edited locally" doesn't this mean that if an image is licensed as CC BY SA 3.0 Generic, that is its actual license at picasa. Due to the changes related to Google/Picasa,I can't see the license for some of these picasa images sometimes. That's all, thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
    "license matches and is valid" seem to mean the license on Picasa is the same as the one on commons and it is a valid (not NC or ND) if I understand the code correctly. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clarification. Have a good day. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You too --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I still wonder if the picasa bot is a bit off. The bot just reviewed this new picasa image above where you can actually see the picasa license and image resolution and it matches the image upload and yet it did not pass it. The uploader did not edit the image--so in theory, it should have been passed. The same thing happened to this image...identical image resolution and you can see the picasa license...so the picasa bot should have passed it but it didn't and now picasa human review has 250+ images in its category. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess they're the same error as last time, the upload dates are before June 13 and the review dates are after June 13. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I ran a new review on this unedited image to test it and the picasa bot still did not pass it. What does this mean? Does it mean that the picasa bot will put each new picasa image into picasa human review? The panoramio review and the flickr bot work fine but the picasa bot seems to have malfunctioned I think. If you have time, just see if there anything that can be done fix it since a bot is supposed to pass images. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

  • As an aside, Slick-o-bot uploaded all these images in picasa human review but this bot just uploads the maximum resolution image possible and doesn't edit the photos--as far as I know. I wonder if Slick-o-bot may have overwhelmed picasa bot with all these images. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    Same reason: the upload dates are before June 13 and the review dates are after June 13. It doesn't matter when the image is marked for review, but when the uploader fetched the image from Picasa (likely the upload date). If that and the review date are not both before June 13 or after June 13, it fails as the file size changed (if I read the code correctly). I don't know an easy way of fix this bug. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe uploading the files from picasa again? (@Slick:?) Or just marking the bot-batch as confirmed because they are basically already confirmed? (@me?) --McZusatz (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd rather mass review them if the uploader is slick-o-bot. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Mushroom Observer et al.

Mushroom Observer
Forestry Images

Do you think you can fork one of your licence review bots to also review Mushroom Observer and/or Forestry Images? I plan to do a full run with user:Flock resulting in a massive LR-backlog. --McZusatz (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be great, but I have no time atm. Perhaps you can make another review bot? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
It is not an immediate task and I'd be ok if it took several weeks/months. I think you are the better bot operator than me because you already coded several review bots in languages I don't understand very well. --McZusatz (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Zhuyifei1999,

This is a bit strange. The picasa image above was uploaded after June 13. I cannot immediatedly see the picasa source but when I click on this picasa link for viewing some picasa images whose license may not be easily viewed as Mr.choppers pointed out to another Admin--I can then go back to the picasa image and view the source. (it only works for some picasa images only) The image source and resolution is identical to the uploaded image but the picasa bot did not pass this photo.

Do you or McZusatz know what is the problem--or is something out of alignment because the bot should have passed this post-June 13 uploaded image? I worry that another bot will upload 200+ picasa images in future and the picasa bot will place them in picasa human review. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

  •  Comment: The Canon camera metadata does not come out in the upload. Does this mean that the uploader manipulated the image then? I thought that would not be a problem if the image resolution was identical. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    temp_picasa_image_full has
     (08@HPX`hpx▒▒▒▒R980100▒▒dhttp://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/<?xpacket begin="" id="W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d"?> <x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="XMP Core 5.1.2"> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> <rdf:Description rdf:about="" xmlns:xmp="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/" xmp:CreatorTool="Google"/> </rdf:RDF> </x:xmpmeta>   <?xpacket end="w"?>▒▒▒
    while the file uploaded here doesn't. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment: All I can say is that hopefully when another bunch of picasa images is marked by the picasa bot that this issue is resolved and the bot passes the picasa images in future. Then one can be certain that everything is fine. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Re:Popular science Monthly categories

Again, thanks for your help. While doing it, you may have realized the problems with such lists. The Unicode characters are less of a concern for me than the deletions without cleaning up the links as well.

This post is not urgent. When you have the inclination, please reply to this post as to what options I have in the future, because I spent many hours on fixing the related pages.Ineuw (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

If you mean the red links, I'll filter them out with the sql query. Is that what you mean? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Zhuyifei,

There is some good news on the picasa bot. It is slowly marking images from picasa. Unfortunately, the slick-o-bot dumped so many images for review that the picasa bot is taking its time...but at least its marking images now.

PS: Are you in Asia. You can tell from my userpage that I'm in BC, Canada. Just curious, Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)--Leoboudv (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

That's good :) For the bot's slowness, it is an error triggered by non-existing edit conflicts that causes program quit occasionally. Perhaps I'll make it restart as soon as the program exits later. And yes, I'm in Asia atm. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Well at least it is marking and passing images. I'm now in Vancouver but was born in the early 1970's in Malaysia as I said in my Wikipedia page and only came to Canada in 1989. Most of my relatives are in 'the old country.' Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

07:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

06:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

07:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

07:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

07:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

08:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)