[Commons-l] some statistics

Sun Jun 11 22:58:20 UTC 2006

I tried it on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Alcib%C3%ADades.jpg.
Note the weird character in the filename.

>Image:Alcib�ades.jpg is now stored as
>http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/commons_images/6ae2eda2d5.jpg
>
>You should copy the above line into a file on your local machine, as
it is the only way to recover the file at a later date!
>Delete file on commons
>The image below should be identical to the one in the upper right
corner. If not, copying was unsuccessful, and you should not delete
the file on the commons!

Neither of the images would load so I couldn't check if this was true.

OK, let's try one without a tricky name: Image:Barrett.jpg

Last edited 78 days ago... bingo!

The delete link worked fine.

OK, interesting.

> * Check the image text for "delete me" templates; list of templates has
> to be expanded, please tell me which to use

which ones do you have so far?

> The deleting admin *has* to copy the new image url line, otherwise the
> image can never be found again! That way, the image is stored away from
> public eyes but still restorable through the deleting admin.

I think instead it should make an edit to the image page saying
"BACK-UP COPY AT (url)". Because the image is about to be deleted
anyway. If time proves the image should be undeleted, you can just
undelete the image page, recover the URL and go from there. That seems
much easier than storing the URL on my local machine for example. It
would also save one manual step ;)

Also...maybe this will encourage admins to delete more stuff, which
would be good. But IMO they have no reason for hesitation where the
image is unsourced for a long time and the uploader was notified. No
hesitation at all. I personally would only use this for images where
the case was contested, such as Deletion requests. So not that many
cases overall. But if it helps admins feel more secure to go on
deletion sprees of unsourced stuff then I support it. :)

I didn't get one that was actually used, though, so I'm not sure what
the check-usage part of the interface will look like.

Do TPTB approve of this use of the toolserver? If commons admins get
into it, it seems like it could be reasonably intensive...

cheers,
Brianna