Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 62

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Want a copy of a deleted file

Could someone please help me with a copy of this deleted file File:Indian_radio_license.jpg for some private use elsewhere. I can be reached by email (see commented address here) Shyamal L. (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If an admin wants to fulfill the request: the e-mail address is in the deleted revision. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is a similar image that could be downloaded. De728631 (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I really need the one that I scanned and uploaded for some checks. My access to the hardcopy is a bit hard at the moment. I did not realize it is this difficult for retrieval. Shyamal L. (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: - gratefully received. Thank you. Shyamal L. (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Inquire about undeletion

Hello.If the file was created by a church in Egypt in 1980, It should be restored (or uploaded) in 2031 (after 51 years)?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2,

Could you say which file you are talking about? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Yann: Any file deleted or can be uploaded in the future, Should it be here after 51 years?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Any deleted file can undeled at a later date. Just add it in Category:Undelete in 2031. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Yann: Well, please review this request for 2029 and 2035.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Okinawa locator maps problem

Is it my computer/system, am I missing something, or is there an actual problem? On several maps that are supposed to be locating communities on the island of Okinawa, I can see no location indicator on the maps at all. These include (but are not limited to):

Category:Locator maps of municipalities in Okinawa prefecture:

Category:Maps of Okinawa prefecture

Etc, etc.

Am I missing something? --Calton (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

On my screen each map has one section colored a brownish orange. Dankarl (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Same here. These maps don't use dots as point markers for the location but the relevant area is coloured somewhat differently. I think though that this "brownish orange" was a rather poor choice because it doesn't stand out very well. A better contrast would be desirable. De728631 (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've checked a couple by flipping back and forth between them, and I see what you're talking about. God, that's a horrible design choice, even if there had been some sort of key designating the color. --Calton (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the colours in all these maps so the locations should now be more obvious. De728631 (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I was still trying to figure out where to get an SVG editor. --Calton (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Auto-protected edit request

Could an admin please fix cats for File:Reina restaurant Istanbul (cropped).JPG like this: +Category:Reina (nightclub); –Category:Ortaköy –Category:Restaurants in Istanbul (I can't cause it's currently auto-protected). Thx :-) --.js (((☎))) 13:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Taivo (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Malformed deletion request

What to do with this DR? It is malformed (it is not listed in Commons:Deletion requests/2016/12/28 and the uploader has not been notified), created by a globally banned user, but IMO it makes sense. --jdx ^Re: 19:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete the DR page and then renominate yourself. Ruslik (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon. No task for the Administrators of Wikimedia Commons. Jcb (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd nominate this for deletion, but it's apparently protected

Template:Crimea notice
{{delete}}
It's "disputed" insofar that Ukraine and other country's are disputing Russia's illegal invasion, occupation, and annexation of territory recognized as Ukrainian.199.7.156.133 23:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

We at Wikimedia Commons are imparcial. It's not our task to tell who is right. Jcb (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done exact: it's disputed, and it is what the template says. --Ruthven (msg) 23:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Just like Category:Beaches of Taiwan is a subcat of Category:Beaches of China, huh.199.7.156.133 00:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

w:Balance fallacy and w:Argument to moderation.199.7.156.133 02:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point. We are not having a 'balanced' or 'moderate' point of view, we are imparcial. Jcb (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

wiktionary:impartial says, "Treating all parties, rivals, or disputants equally; not partial; not biased; fair. They are not equal. Russia is neither morally nor legally equal to Ukraine in this "dispute," even less so than the reverse of Russia and Ukraine's disparities in power; and the immediate issue here is that this template is protect. Why? What proportion of templates here are protected?199.7.156.133 02:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This template is protected to prevent it from being edited by totally mistaken people like you. Jcb (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

How am I mistaken, much less "totally" mistaken?199.7.156.133 02:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

(same person, different IP)
Similar templates don't exist for Category:Kuril Islands, Category:Abkhazia, nor Category:South Ossetia.

wikipedia:Crimea states:

In March 2014, following the ousting of pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych in the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, armed Russian special forces backed by pro-Russian separatists invaded major Ukrainian government buildings, military bases and telecommunication facilities of the peninsula and forced local authorities to hold an illegal referendum [4] on "reunification with Russia".

Seems kinda asymmetrical to me.199.119.232.217 13:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Need reason for file deletion

Hello. Can someone please let me know why the source for this file was deleted? The red-throated loon article in English wikipedia is currently being evaluated for featured article status, and a question has been raised as to whether the file can be used. MeegsC (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I don't see any valid reason why it was deleted, let alone speedied, so I restored it. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Identifiable intoxicated person

Hi, can someone take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adicciones.png? Can this be deleted speedily rather than waiting the 7days? The case is clear. Thanks either way. Daphne Lantier 07:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Done, I closed it. Taivo (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism fix

I hope nobody minds my repairing the vandalism to this page done by User:TheSkriLLTruth. I've put back the 3 topics opened since the account blanked the page. Daphne Lantier 08:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Done, the vandal is indefinitely blocked. Taivo (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Taivo: Thank you for helping with both of these. Daphne Lantier 19:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Flickrwashing account?

Dear Admins,

Is this account a flickrwashing account?

Some of this person's wrestling flickr images were uploaded yesterday and have ended up in this category However, some are clearly not her own work like this and others are stated to come from blogsites or third party sites such as Hubpages. Perhaps this account should be blacklisted and her flickr images on Commons be considered for deletion ASAP.

I filed two separate DRs here and here but there are too many images in the category. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if they uploaded to the flickr account aka for a purpose of uploading them her or elswere (aka flickrwashing) but more accuret question is if we should be in Commons:Questionable Flickr images. There are 27 files fro the same site. this file for example can be seen in tweeter her (direct). It look like that files from this account are questionable. -- Geagea (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Answering the initial question -- is this a Flickrwashing account? -- yes and no. I looked at around ten of the images in the account and they all had either "(C) All Rights Reserved" or the PDM, neither of which are acceptable on Commons. If the intention was Flickrwashing, the account can't be used for that. But yes, all of the ones I looked at appeared elsewhere on the Web in the same size or larger.

As for what to do, VFC makes it very easy to go through Category:Flickr_public_domain_images_needing_human_review and tag the appropriate ones for deletion. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Can't Delete

File:Education.ogg - someone else want to have a go? - A database query error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software.[WHVoLQpAME8AAB2xSAwAAAAT] 2017-01-10 23:03:25: Fatal exception of type "DBQueryError" Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It's OK - it went 5 mins later after several tries... Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Influx of files with embedded data (CSD#F9) – continuation 2

Previous discussion 1; Previous discussion 2; Abuse filters: JPEG, PNG, GIF, large newbie uploads and Zero uploads; Bot Request; Reports: Absurd overhead, Wrong Extension (zero pixel check)

Update from ticket:2016120310005375. Telenor message to us - "We have set the launch date for daily usage limit to be on 17/01/2017" Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Non-free revisions in File:Classical music composers montage.JPG

For File:Classical music composers montage.JPG, the file history indicates that a new revision was uploaded on September 20, 2015 because the previous revision incorporated an image that had been subsequently deleted on copyright grounds. From this, it appears that the first two revisions of the montage are non-free (the file history claims that the second revision is a slightly retouched version of the first revision.) Please consider hiding the first two revisions of the montage (November 27, 2010 and February 17, 2013.) Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Yann (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

SVG with raster graphics

Most users, esp. unexperienced ones, are glad when they are told how to make better. Some users don't like to get advice; and some do not care at all.
User Rcsprinter123 made many hundreds of fine SVG maps, but they all contain embedded raster graphics in a relation of about 5% useful code and 95% not-removed useless fill crap. As an example, this SVG file consists of 290 kB code and ~ 6 MB crap, bloating this file to 20 times its useful size. Even with a fast internet provider time difference can be seen when accessing this file; and with many hundreds (the user itself talks about thousands) of files his uploads occupy and waste large amounts of Wikimedia databases with mere garbage. Browsing his files is not only time-consuming, it may also become expensive if users have limited download amount.

In June 2015 he was asked in a friendly manner by Perhelion and Grolltech whether he could refrain from uploading such bloatet files. He was also schown an example where the relation is 161 kB to 7.48 MB (2%). It seems that he didn't understand, or however: in the last 1½ years he continued to upload hundreds of new maps, each one of them bloatet with megabytes of useless embeddings.

Of course it is possible to add for each large file a disgarbaged version, crap removed and scour-optimized; but much better would be to treat the files before uploading them!

My questions

Exists an agreement that it's better to have files without PGF Data blocks and useless embedded raster graphic blocks?
If so, can anybody explain this to Rcsprinter123 in a way he is able to understand?

I would be glad if we can find a solution. sarang♥사랑 13:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I can understand this, alright. I just haven't been shown a rule that says you shouldn't "waste" the database space. Why should I go out of my way to amend each file if there is no requirement to? Rcsprinter123 (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Me (and many others) are not wasting any resource, no matter what kind it is. Using yes, senseless wasting no, by self-evidence. And large file sizes have other disadvantages too.

The rule not to create "Bad SVG" is only for the display of images. In the case of your files the embedded data is not displayed, it is only there without any other function than bloating files to about twenty or fifty times of their size. BTW it is neither a rule to draw only W3C-valid SVG files, but nevertheless for most creators it is as well self-evident to care for W3C-valid code. Wikipedia has very few rules, and with a reason every rule can be ignored and exceptions are possible.

It is no difficulty at all to change "your way" slightly for creating files of a more reasonable size containing less garbage. Your maps are fine, and with less ballast I would like them. sarang♥사랑 17:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why this is a problem. We thumbnail SVG files, so the big size is not a problem unless you need to edit the original. And when you do that, the extra data (which has the original bitmaps from which the SVG was drawn) can actually be useful. Matma Rex (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Usually you don't want to use a thumbnailed PNG version, but the original SVG version, though. Thumbnailing SVG files is just a bad, outdated habit of Mediawiki. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Rcsprinter123, while we do not have a specific rule against creating vastly bloated files, we certainly should all do our part to conserve resources -- both WMF server space and the time required to deal with such bloated files. Since you have been warned, I see no reason why you should not be blocked if you continue this wasteful practice. Sebari, do you agree? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Rcsprinter123, please do not embed the bitmap in SVG files. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little late to the party, but thanks for raising this issue. I think it's rather telling that the tag name used to categorize files into Category:SVG images with embedded raster graphics is {{BadSVG}}! This a mockery of the SVG standard (which, arguably, could be considered as a "rule", by the way).

If we assume that an average of Perhelion's file and my file are representative, then a 6.55 MB file reduces to just 152 KB when it is properly created. The average file is thus bloated to 42 times its standard size. Now, you said that "thousands" of these files have been created. For every thousand, therefore, you are wasting 6.4 GIGABYTES of storage on the WMF's servers!

In addition to storage, every time the page is requested, it places a completely unnecessary strain upon the web servers and the network. These maps are used on a vast number of very popular pages. One might argue that the files are cached, but that too has a cost associated with it.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is the impact on the end user, on page load times, and on user abandonment rates – all because it took too long to load the page. Don't assume everyone is sitting on a gigabit Internet connection – there are still many around the world running at dialup speeds, and they are cursing your maps right about now. But is there any benefit to the user that might justify this overhead? Nope. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

I would point out that you need not go through each and every file by hand to remove the raster layer. A bot can easily be created to do this. The bot can even submit the bloated version of the file for deletion if the sysops desire. But going forward, please delete that layer before uploading it. It will cost you just one mouse click to do so.

So far, the only justification I have heard is that on the rare occasion that an individual map is edited, it "might be useful" for the editor to be able to refer to the original, outdated PNG, which is already available elsewhere. That's it? On rare occasion, it might be useful, to just one person? You can't be serious. —grolltech^(talk) 22:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Fine, I shall remove it in future. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

6.4 gigabytes is nothing. Commons has around 100 terabytes of files (Special:MediaStatistics). As a MediaWiki developer, I'm pretty sure that these embedded bitmaps are not a problem. Matma Rex (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we are glad that there is no shortage on storage space. But IMHO that is not demanding to upload gigabytes of mere garbage! Which stresses the resources of everybody who gets such a file displayed. It is no special effort necessary to get a ballast-free file, and it should be self-evident and good style to upload clean files. Unfortunately I have no experience with the Inkscape extension "Scour", but by hand a reduction to 1.35% of former size is possible with the advantage of much faster loading. sarang♥사랑 16:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Rcsprinter123, your willingness to take these community concerns into account is appreciated. --Kevjonesin (talk) 07:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Remove

Except the version as of 16:46, 12 January 2017, please remove all the version of File:Manohar_Lal_Khattar,_Chief_Minister_Of_State_Of_Haryana,_India.jpg.Peter EngHin (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Why? And if you crop a picture, please use lossless cropping and don't downsample the result. --Magnus (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, he's not the copyright holder, why should any reuser credit him? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Blocked user as likely vandalism sock. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Requesting a GeoNotice for a local event in San Francisco

UPDATE: See 2 threads down for updated request.

~~Hello to any Commons admin who knows how to put up a WatchlistNotice (and a courtesy ping to: @Natuur12, Peteforsyth, Andrew Gray, Zhuyifei1999, and Steinsplitter: )~~

~~( History from archive, if needed: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 57#Requesting a GeoNotice for a local event in San Francisco )~~

Hi, this is last minute, but we are hosting a Wikipedia Day 16 Birthday bash & edit-a-thon in San Francisco this Sunday the 15th at 2 p.m. and we would like to get the word out via a WATCHLISTNOTICE to other projects who may like to attend (Commons, Wikidata, Wiktionary, etc.).

~~Here is our GeoNotice request on Wikipedia, which has been fulfilled: Wikipedia:Geonotice#Wikipedia:Meetup.2FSF.2FWikipedia Day 2017~~

Details and RSVP: Wikipedia:Meetup/SF/Wikipedia Day 2017. Cheers! PS: since starting this new section I have become aware of the WatchlistNotice talk page and that it has a wizard, so I will be trying that in a minute. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Tulsi Bhagat user rights

Hello, Tulsi Bhagat is globally locked for cross-wiki abuse. Userrights are not needed for farming socks and cross-wiki abusive user. Remove all the rights associated in his account. --36.253.255.110 15:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

~~Done~~.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 23:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Partially done. Actually, I can't remove the translation administrator bit.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 23:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Technically, you could. MechQuester (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@MechQuester: Administrators can only add/remove translation administrator from themselves, it takes a Bureaucrat to add/remove the right from other editors. It's been mentioned over there. - Revent^talk 08:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible advertising

Please check the uploads by User:Rocks and Monk. Rocks and Monk appears to be a company, and the description on the files seems to be promotional. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we need to treat this with care. Spamming is bad, but we should encourage manufacturers, retailers and other companies to supply product images, which have benefits beyond promoting their products. These are good, professional-quality images. Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Andy. As long as it pertains to in-scope contributions, a slight amount of advertising is okay. After all, this is what the attribution line of CC licenses is for, basically. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

However we do need COM:EVIDENCE of COM:Permission sent to COM:OTRS. (t) Josve05a (c) 18:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I defer to your judgement. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Need a WatchlistNotice edit request fulfilled ASAP

UPDATE: Cheers, all. Sorry to bother you. Can an available Commons admin please post this WatchlistNotice for our Wikipedia Day 16 Birthday bash San Francisco ASAP? We would like Commons folks to come too! I found the Wizard. Thank you so much. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC) (courtesy pings to: @Natuur12, Zhuyifei1999, and Steinsplitter: ) Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Done by Zhuyifei1999. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete version

Hello, can you delete (mask) the version : 27 octobre 2015 à 14:12 in the page File:Soultz rBouchers 7 (1).JPG ?

I indeed hide some privates elements after an OTRS request (n°2017010610015921). Cordially. --Gratus (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Simon-hammelburg-1411044044.jpg

Please restore the original file version and delete the differing image versions (copyvio of [1]). I tried to explain the problem with overwriting files and the need for a valid license to the uploader at User talk:Drumboy, but he may have missed my message and reverted again. GermanJoe (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Reverted, version deleted and protected for three days. If this continues afterwards, please let us know. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Data not compatible with CC0 license

It isn't possible add template in Data namespace so I use this talk: data in Data:Orio_al_Serio_airport/statistiche.tab aren't CC0 compatible, the disclaimer of the site is here (italian): "This site is subject to copyright restrictions." so it's necessary delete the data. I ping @Gabbg82: that have loaded the data. --ValterVB (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
It's the same for Data:Sandbox/Gabbg82/Orio.tab --ValterVB (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It's the same for Data:Porto di Genova/Merci imbarcate sbarcate.tab, the data provided by "Unità Organizzativa Statistica" require citation. I ping @Sabas88: that have loaded the data. --ValterVB (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It's the same for Data:Sandbox/Sunpriat/ConstStarsOrigin5.tab. Data copied from github, no license availabe, but the data are derived from astronexus.com that use the license CC BY-SA 2.5 I ping @Yurik: that have created the page and @Sunpriat: that have modified the page. --ValterVB (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Also Data:Sandbox/Sunpriat/ConstStarsOrigin5.map and Data:Sandbox/Sunpriat/ConstStarsOrigin.map derived from astronexus.com --ValterVB (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It's the same also for Data:Sandbox/Sunpriat/ConstLinesOrigin.map and Data:Sandbox/Sunpriat/ConstBordersOrigin.map source is astronexus.com and IAU, but IAU use the license CC BY 4.0, for Data:Sandbox/Sunpriat/ConstLine.map, Data:Sandbox/Sunpriat/ConstCoord.map, Data:Sandbox/Sunpriat/ConstBorder.map and Data:Sandbox/Sunpriat/Const.map source is IAU and Visus (I haven't found the last one). --ValterVB (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It was a sandbox, the sources were not written correctly. 1)ConstCoord - calculated by me. 2)ConstStars - w:hipparcos catalogue in the public domain, on github just comfortable csv table, they do not have a copyright on data 3)ConstBorders - from here [2]; international standard - it should be public domain 4)ConstLines - the data itself is just a sequence of hipparcos coordinates, they made by me, this is not on the IAU website; but then lines drawn by the coordinates forming same pattern as on the IAU maps ("Alan MacRobert's constellation patterns") --Sunpriat (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Some doubt about Data:Sandbox/RolandUnger/Cerchiara di Calabria.map The original data are on wikivoyage, but license is CC BY-SA 3.0. I ping @RolandUnger: that have created the page --ValterVB (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

While we don't have specific guidelines and policies for the data namespace in place, I'd suggest to nominate those pages for deletion like any other page with an invalid license. (Copyrighted tabular data is a terrible misuse of intellectual property rights, but that's the way it is, unfortunately.) Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Nominating Data pages for deletion is unfortunately quite a hassle – it involves creating the talkpage, nominating it for deletion, changing the DR link and manually notifying the Data page creator. FDMS 4 19:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Yurik: Can we have this fixed? --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T155290

@Steinsplitter: , see phab:T155290. Hope that should address the issue. --Yurik (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I don't think is necessary specific guideline for data namespace, the only requirement is that it must be CC0. I write here, because in namespace data we can't use template and "Nominate for deletion" don't work. --ValterVB (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I think GPX track data (only coordinates and elevation) as used in “Cerchiara di Calabria.map” are not copyrightable because they were automatically generated by a machine (GPS device) not by a human being. They lack of any originality/creativity. Both for CC-by-sa and CC0 you need “creative human activities” (see for instance File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg, too). Normally these article-like data should be marked as “public domain” which is not possible in the current state of the Mediawiki software. It should be possible for Commons data to mark them as at least as “public domain” or “cc-by-sa”. I think it is also possible to re-attribute/relicense such data from (wrongly attributed) CC-by-sa to CC0 or Open Data Commons Open Database Lizenz (ODbL) as it was done by OpenStreetMap because data cannot be CC-by-sa. --RolandUnger (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Mere 'factual data' is not copyrightable under US law, as it contains no original human creative contribution... see the Copyright Compendium, page 24 here, or the well-known en:Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. case. There is no 'database right' in US law. Wikilegal has written a 'preliminary' opinions about such matters (see meta:Wikilegal/Database Rights), but the TL;DR version is that we only need to be concerned about the 'large scale' automated data mining of EU sources. - Revent^talk 08:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that Wikilegal says more than what you say here (creatice expression, EU law etc). But for me it isn't a problem, if admins think that there is no problem it's ok for me. --ValterVB (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess we need to add copyright guidelines for database works from various countries. I have just read the article on the German Wikipedia about that subject (which will probably apply more or less to most European countries) and there are quite a few limits on copyrightability. (Basically, the work must either contain editorial choices or there must have been a significant amount of work to gather the data.) I think this will not apply to most simple lists. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably can be useful also w:Sui generis database right and w:Database Directive --ValterVB (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@ValterVB: Yes, I was somewhat intentionally avoiding a lot of the intricacies... it's why I pointed out 'what we would need to be concerned about'. The point, really, is that a simple 'fact' itself can't be copyrighted, only the 'selection' or 'arrangement' of such facts to create an original work. If the collection of facts is 'comprehensive', not selective, or it's either arranged in an obvious way or the arrangement is changed to be unrecognizable, then we should be fine. Something like a GPS track is clearly okay.... it's simply the 'facts' of where someone was at particular moments, arranged in a standardized manner. - Revent^talk 09:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately in Europe the situation is not so simple, it isn't easy say if data are protect or not. The formula «by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents, constitute the author's own intellectual creation» is very vague, personally if I do not see an explicit declaration "CC0" I prefer don't use the data. For example I don't think that is possible to use w:ESA data in CC0 (if not explicitly stated) because ESA is a European agency and in Europe exist the "Database Directive". --ValterVB (talk) 11:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Was ist denn hier schief gegangen?

Es erscheinen die Kategorien

auf der Seite Category:Other speedy deletions. --Hystrix (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Калюка, сделанная из борщевика.jpg und Commons:Deletion requests/File:Калюка.jpg werden von den Seiten eingebunden, damit auch der Schnelllöschantrag. --Didym (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Das war mir schon vorher bekannt. Wer erweckt Ellin? --Hystrix (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. --Achim (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

thx Achim

Figure suggestion

Just a suggestion:

Would be fine, I think, just to improve wikipedia's style and to make the Figures even more coherent if, apart of the the text box they have, they included a reference to the text like "Figure 1, Figure 2 etc" as for the lector to integrate the Figure in the context of a concrete point of the text. We could make it another point of the redacting style the articles have, maybe adding a different location within the image where to write it, not just at the beginning of the Figure description box text.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galvain (talk • contribs) 16:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Galvain: Perhaps that would be a good suggestion to put at Wikipedia? This is Wikimedia Commons, we're not in charge of their formatting! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Long-overdue close

Anyone mind closing Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/01/Category:University libraries in the United States? If nobody does anything with it in the next two weeks, it will have been open for more than three years. I'd like to subdivide it by state (it has 235 files and subcategories), but I'm not doing that until renaming is accomplished or denied.

On a broader scope, do we have any way of tracking the CFDs and DRs that have been open for the longest time? Of course most of them get closed relatively speedily, but it would be nice if we had a way of attacking the backlog by hitting the oldest ones first. Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Done, but please note that CfDs can be closed by anyone competent. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Srittau, but I couldn't immediately think of anyone else to ask, and since I had participated I didn't think I should do anything. Any ideas on the backlog-tracking idea? Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Not really. I think the only solution is to make other users - especially admins - aware of the fact that CfDs also need regular attention, similar to deletion requests. I will try to work on the backlog soon. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

File:C-145 (19463752953).jpg

This image is sourced to the US National Park Service and should be free but the camera metadata says 'All rights reserved by Stuart Palley, no use without permission. Infringement subject to legal action.' Can an Admin decide to pass or delete this image? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Secondly, can this image be passed below?
File:Tim Weller.jpg

Just curious, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

No comment on the second one. On the first one, the image was uploaded with a PD mark by the official Flickr stream of a National Park Service unit. We can expect that they made the arrangements to have this declared PD somehow, because they'd open themselves up to a good deal of legal action if they do otherwise. The only other option, as I see it, is to conclude that this isn't really the official Flickr stream of an NPS unit (i.e. someone else is fraudulently claiming to be NPS), but even without any evidence, I'd suggest that's really unlikely — why would you impersonate a governmental agency for the sole purpose of putting up photos? Nyttend (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank You. I've passed the first image. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Leoboudv: I don't think the Tim Weller image passes the test. It has been argued back and forth at Commons that the PD Mark is not a license itself and we do need to know why it is in the public domain. There is nothing in the metadata or at the Flickr page that explains if and why the original photographer waived their copyright. De728631 (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@De728631: Thanks for your help on the Tim Weller image. I have launched a DR on the image. Hopefully, the flickr license will be changed to one of the three I suggested. Best from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Non-free revisions in File:Golden Hollywood.png

The file history for File:Golden Hollywood.png indicates that new revisions of the montage were uploaded on three occasions because the montage was found to incorporate images that had been deleted. On January 11, 2017 at 11:44, a new revision was uploaded that incorporated replacement images in place of certain previously deleted images. This VP/C discussion has further details. On January 11, 2017 at 12:11, a new revision was uploaded because the previous revision had an image of Charlie Chaplin that had been deleted on en-wiki. On January 13, 2017, a new revision was uploaded because the previous revision had an image of Mae West that (yes, once again) been deleted on en-wiki.

Basically, the first three revisions of File:Golden Hollywood.png should be hidden, with only the fourth revision (January 13, 2017) being left visible. Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Done --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Jesse Klaver.jpg - version without permission

Please only delete the version of 15 January. It has been previously published at [[3]], bottom right corner. So it would need a separate OTRS-verified upload (as an idealizing portrait photo it is also inferior for encyclopedic purposes, but I digress). GermanJoe (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Not bottom right corner, but second from right, but anyway

Done. Taivo (talk) 09:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:History of Czechia

Despite running CFD (Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:History of Czechia) User:ŠJů continues with controversial renaming of categories (xxxx in the Czech Republic) with edit summary "anarchronism". As he is taking part in the discussion in CFD he is totally aware of that CFD. Because of redirects I am not able to revert these moves.--Jklamo (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Only categories from Category:Czechia by year were affected by the last renames. Remaining ca. one third of subcategories used words "in the Czech Republic", incompatible with the navigation template {{Czechiayear}} which caused that those categories disappeared from navigation. On the other hand, categories using {{Countries of Europe}} need to keep "in the Czech Republic" until the template is adapted.

The CfD is open and all basic problems, reasons and arguments were desribed there, but consensus can be achieved only by those participants who are able and willing to solve the existing problems and to look for optimal and systematic solution. Whatever irrational resistance can block it, thus the discussion is predestined to be endless and unfruitful. Whether regrettably or fortunately, several foreign editors didn't suppose that several Czechs decide to sabotage and refuse official geographical name of their country and tried to correct the most obvious discrepancies. This disunity is a result. However, basic functionality of navigation and structure needs to be maintained urgently and permanently. --ŠJů (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Beata Szydło wygłasza exposé (18.11.2015).JPG

Can an Admin pass this image? It is PD as it is a KPRM image but I am transcluded from marking it. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Taivo (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again. Regards from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Belarus categories renaming

Hi! User:Red Winged Duck renames pages about Belarus regions from english names to names in latinized belarus script, e.g. Mahilyow -> Mahilioŭ ([4]). I am not sure if it is ok to do that. --Tohaomg (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Tohaomg. It's not latinized belarus script, but latin script for any latin script language as defined in en:Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script. These names are also english names as well as names in these categories: Category:Villages in Łódź Voivodeship, Category:Villages in Latvia, Category:Villages in Lithuania. --Red Winged Duck (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright Violations

Uploading book covers never used to be a problem. What changed? Instead of making threats, how about you tell me the proper way to do this? In plain English, please. Do you need permission from the artists? How do I go about doing that? I need your help. I've been a prolific editor for years and want to continue doing so. Thank you, Chris Mini Zion, IL — Preceding unsigned comment added by PKDASD (talk • contribs) 23:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@PKDASD: Where did you upload book covers before? There is no record of you having done that successfully in Commons. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

This is apparently about File:Miricles.jpg which was deleted by INeverCry. The deletion was justified as the book cover includes a photograph which is eligible for copyright. Such cases may not be uploaded without permission by the copyright holders. We accept book covers that are ineligible for copyright (if they are consisting just of typeface) or if they are already in the public domain. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Alaska y Mario (Star Trek) (30609549320).jpg

Can an admin clean the history of this file? I've removed prominent copyrighted elements. Thanks --Discasto _talk 11:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Same with File:Antonio José Navarro (escritor) (30096542514) (2).jpg, File:Shin Godzilla - Shinji Higuchi (director) (30428611130) (2).jpg and File:Clara Sanz (Super Amara) & Ricardo Ramón y Agurtzane Intxaurraga (Teresa eta Gatzagorri) (30093874103) (2).jpg. Thanks --Discasto _talk 11:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Done - Revent^talk 13:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Revent: Thanks :-) --Discasto _talk 14:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Orders, symbols of honor and medals

In this Category:Orders, decorations and medals by country, many files are given as their own work and as authors themselves. They are usually only an owner of one of these things, but no author (engraver) or publisher (state, county, principality).

The source is usually "own work". Unlikely for most.

The originator often calls himself the loader himself.

Please excuse my bad English. --Hystrix (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Photos uploaded by User:Mononykus

User:Mononykus has uploaded over 50 photos, mostly of sharks. I recognize at least a dozen of these as from copyrighted sources, e.g. File:SmoothHammerheadShark007.jpg, File:Dana Point California October 21 1990.jpg, File:Dana Point California October 21 1990 2.JPG, File:Isogomphodon oxyrhynchus table.jpg. I suspect that most if not all the photos are copyrighted; they all need to be checked and potentially deleted. -- Yzx (talk) 07:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Three day block of User:Alchemist-hp for edit warring

For reference, I blocked Alchemist-hp (talk · contribs) for continued edit warring on Commons:Forum after I left a general message there to stop the edit war. A message of a user that was considered by some to be a personal attack was repeatedly removed and re-added. In this case by the user targeted. While the removed message is unfriendly and condescending (and participants of that discussion have been warned), it in no way justifies a removal by other users, especially since the discussion was beginning to get heated anyway. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I lifted the block, user agreed not to revert anymore. The user thought he was being called a Nazi by another user (quite a serious allegation in German), which I think was a misunderstanding. I can understand the reverts. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems that User:A.Savin blocked the other participant in the discussion Falk2 (talk · contribs) for the alleged bad personal attack for 14 days. I think this has the same underlying misunderstanding. "Brr, Brauner, ruhig" is not a reference to Nazis, but to horses and "ruhig, Brauner" is a fixed saying. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

From my understanding, "Brauner" is "brown" which in German language clearly refering to a Nazi. The other meaning is completely unknown to me, and even if it applies in this particular case, Falk2 is surely aware of the other, much more common meaning, and should have avoided using this word, as he clearly knows what he is doing. I also fail to understand why only Alchemist was blocked. On the one hand, when Alchemist felt offended (which is completely understandable for the reason stated above), it was his right to remove the disputed comment; it is common practice to remove offensive comments by other people in a discussion. On the other hand, there was an other user who edit-warred on the Forum and tried to restore the "Brauner" comment, namely Stefan64. It was also my thought to block him for restoring this offensive comment; however I refrained from a block, because of the fact that Stefan64 is otherwise rarely active on Commons and a block would not have an effect of a sanction, like it would in German WP. But when we speak of editwarring, Stefan64 is clearly one of the first candidates for a block, along with Alchemist. --A.Savin 12:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

That the "brauner" comment was referring to Nazis was not even crossing my mind. "Ruhig, Brauner" is a fairly common idiom with no connection to Nazis, you can google it easily. Let's wait to hear Falk2's statement, though. Alchemist was blocked, because he continued to edit-war after my warning not to do so, although I understand now why he felt justified in doing so. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought the same as A.Saving. Falk's called a few days ago a user "Geldgeier" which is a personal attack, i also see a long-term bad behavior by the user on Commons:Forum. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Here it is explained as "Chill, man". That page also explains that it can be easily confused with the other meaning. J e e 14:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Nice find, Jee! I actually learned a lot of new swear words thanks to the first post, and I am a native speaker. ;) Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I started to think it could be a regional or at least east-German thing: Sebari is from Berlin, Falk2 is from Leipzig (see his user page in dewiki); I (from Potsdam) do know this expression, as well, and I didn’t like Sebari even think of a Nazi relation here, but: As I found out it originates from Richard Wagner’s opera Walküre (ok its libretto …): "Ruhig Brauner!" - Herkunft. Searching the full verse “Ruhig Brauner! Brich den nicht Frieden!” you can find online text sources, here is one in German and English: Richard Wagner - Libretti - Die Walküre. Alex, I think you should unblock Falk2 with a short statement about the error (given that log files are not deleted and can not be edited). Or if there was edit warring by him, too, shorten this block. — Speravir – 04:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm open for suggestions how to resolve this without the full block; however, I still don't see any statement by Falk2. This might mean that they stand to their comments / to the editwar, and/or disrespect Commons, which is for me a poor premise to lift the block. --A.Savin 06:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

My statement: I'd like and wish: to see a removing of "brauner"!!! I think and I'm sure Falk2 meant the word with "N...", bacause "brauner" is ambiguous. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Alchemist-hp, bitte lies dir unaufgeregt (!) meinen Beitrag in Commons:Forum durch: Ruhig, Brauner! — Speravir – 18:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry to say, but such a misunderstanding could only happen to Germans due to their hypersensitivity caused by the country's history. It is absolutely clear that “Brrr, Brauner, ruhig!” to the well-known phrase “Ruhig Brauner!”, where “Brauner” refers to a jumpy horse. --Leyo 00:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Ich habe meine Anmerkung hier hinterlegt. Für mich ist die Sache somit erledigt. {{Section resolved!}} --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Also kann Falk2 jetzt endlich entsperrt werden? Oder ist ein Pferdevergleich (übrigens das einzige, was mir dabei in Sinn kommt, sowohl aus Ost- wie Westfalen, Berlin und Bremen) neuerdings tatsächlich ein sanktionswürdiger PA? Sänger (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

See (un)block log. --Leyo 01:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Leyo 01:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Username

I would put User:Adolf Hetler as a potentially offensive username to some people. Could I have a second opinion? Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

+1, unless the user's real name is that, which is very unlikely. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Srittau: Thanks. I've blocked him here, and on en-wiki as well. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 02:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I hope it isn't a flower child from the 60s who was given such a name by some crazy parents Jasonanaggie (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Unlikely as it's a surname. :-) He's active on ar-wiki - I suggested he get a global rename there Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Whitehouse pictures

We had the established practice of trusting pictures from whitehouse.gov and marking them as PD-USgov. But now we have Commons:Deletion requests/File:Melania Trump portrait.jpg. Deletion seems correct to me, but this means that from now on we have to be more careful with pictures from this website. Jcb (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I wonder this could be an ongoing problem that may not be just limited to the White House, since Régina Mahaux is Trump's personal photographer. Bidgee (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

borrar categoría en Commons

Solicito el borrado de la categoría "Category:Churches and monasteries in Meis", cuyo contenido distribuí en otras subcategorías de "Category:Churches in Meis‎". Pedro --Lameiro (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Lameiro: Por favor coloca {{speedy|Empty category}} en dicha categoría para que sea borrada por un administrador. Saludos, —Marco Aurelio 17:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Messed-up CFD

User:129.45.112.85 seems to have tried to start a CFD on Category:Female еrotic models, but it's a mess & I can't even work out intention. It was started today, but the CFD page is Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/01/Category:Female еrotic models (note year). Content on that page makes no sense. If this were someone with an account, I'd try to get hold of them & work this out, but would anyone think it inappropriate if I just delete this page, remove the template from Category:Female еrotic models, etc.? - Jmabel ! talk 19:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree that a clean-up makes sense. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Info Don't waste your time for asking him – the guy hidden under 129.45.0.0/17 is a long-term vandal. He created such a nonsensical CFDs also yesterday. I've blocked this range for a month. --jdx ^Re: 21:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I wasn't even thinking "vandal," just assuming someone was somehow confused. - Jmabel ! talk 01:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 01:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Review needed

Can an admin do a license review for File:Donald Trump taking his Oath of Office.png? The file is protected with full cascading protection. Thanks. lNeverCry 01:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The frame is from approximately 1:43:10 to 1:43:30 which shows the whole oath of office being given. lNeverCry 01:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The file is licensed under YouTube Standard license, thus inadmissible for Commons (even if it's White House's account on YouTube I think). When Commons Delinker finishes replacing it with File:Donald Trump swearing in ceremony.jpg, then we can delete it. --Ruthven (msg) 13:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The conclusion is incorrect. The license is CC-BY as per https://www.whitehouse.gov/copyright as the same video is hosted at https://www.whitehouse.gov/live/inauguration-45th-president-united-states. As the YouTube channel is claimed by whitehouse.gov, then the same license applies to any media on the channel, unless challenged by a prior claim.

If anyone wishes to challenge this copyright status further, I suggest we have a proper DR so we can establish a precedent.

As a courtesy, @Sandiego91: . Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

If you say so Fæ, I believe you. Btw, can you review it, so we can close the matter please? --Ruthven (msg) 19:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, it's protected against my edits. --Fæ (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Fae I reviewed it. Stuff from 'The White House' YouTube channel is fine, especially when marked with the 'wh.gov' watermark, as it's created by employees of the executive branch as part of their duties. It's not CC-BY, it's simply PD as US government works... CC-BY only applies to third-party content. - Revent^talk 11:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Can photo metadata be deleted?

I uploaded a photo and discovered that metadata show my real name. Which I would have liked to keep away from here. Can metadata be deleted or can I replace the photo with one that has cleared metadata? File:Philipp Peter Roos (Rosa da Tivoli), Shepherd with sheep and Goat.jpg--Nero Reising (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Google "EXIF editor" and find something suitable to you. Then create a copy of the file and edit out the EXIF info you don't want in and re upload the file. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Herbie, it´s done.--Nero Reising (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nero Reising: I have deleted the old version. You might want to contact the oversighters if you want these versions to be inaccessible to administrators as well. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. - Revent^talk 11:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Dolls

Hello.

When can they undeleted:
I want to upload these images:
1. https://pixabay.com/en/photos/?q=doll+with+high+heels&image_type=&cat=&min_width=&min_height=
2. https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=doll%20with%20high%20heels&license=4%2C5%2C9%2C10

Are there any copyrighted dolls?And if there are, how long?When is it possible to uploaded them?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

To be out of copyright, means that 70 years since the death of the designer needs to pass, or the doll has been released as copyright free by its creator. So some home-made dolls released by the creator would be fine. Taking the example of Barbie, this means 70 years after the death of Jack Ryan, so 2062, or later if the dolls are later new designs.

You can still use photographs where the dolls are incidental and can be considered de minimis, such as in a general shop window display, or a table in a jumble sale. Refer to COM:TOYS. --Fæ (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Good faith treated as it would be vandalism

Special:Contributions/83.5.208.140

user:jdx performs blanket reverts without rationales even if editor is Good Faith, example Special:Contributions/83.5.208.140. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.30.49.197 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 23 January 2017‎ (UTC)

Unfortunately, good intentions and competence don't always go hand in hand. Good faith or not, the result of those edits was certainly unconstructive. Good reverts and good block. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Halfpenny.pdf

Could someone look at this file? IMO it is just impossible for the file to be so huge, even if uncompressed 16-bit TIFF were inside the PDF. --jdx ^Re: 10:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Info It is a vector image! And it is pretty interesting. I suggest to view it magnified 8–10 times. --jdx ^Re: 10:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The PDF would be out of scope since our scope says that PDFs may only be used for historical documents and similar, not for images. I can convert it to a PNG, but since it is a vector image, SVG would be more appropriate, but I am not very familiar with SVG code. P.S. The PDF gave my computer lots of stress, so I can't convert it to PNG using the original PDF. I can convert it to PNG without CPU problems using its highest possible JPG version, but I don't want to waste my time removing the artifacts caused by lossy compression. So please do the conversion for this PDF, use SVG if you can. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 02:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised – SVG version is smaller than PDF version. --jdx ^Re: 00:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it is because SVG is simpler than PDF. What software did you use in converting it to SVG? BTW, thanks for doing the conversion, I nominated the PDF version for deletion per COM:SCOPE. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 12:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

But AFAIK data inside a PDF file could be compressed while a (standard) SVG file is a text file. Anyway, I use Inkscape for such conversions. On a good ole P4 3.4 GHz + 4 GiB RAM running WinXP+SP3.

--jdx ^Re: 15:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

My computer is running WinXP+SP3, but has only 1 GHZ CPU and 1 GB RAM. My computer is not good for such conversions like this :D ★ Poké⁹⁵ 12:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

AFAICT the entire Illustrator drawing got embedded in the original file (its default behaviour when saving PDFs) as ‘overhead’ with no effect on the appearance. When I run it through the file-optimizer in Acrobat it gets pared down to 24 MB, just under one-quarter the original size.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Should every anonymous vandal be warned?

I am watching User:Kaulder with intention of granting him autopatrol and rollback rights in two weeks or so. However his behaviour is somewhat strange to me – he inserts into talk page of every anonymous one-time vandal template {{Test}}. In theory is very proper behaviour (see COM:BP), but in practice it is completely useless, even counterproductive (someone should/has to patrol it). As per COM:BP there is no obligation to warn vandals. So, before I give him an advice, I am looking for an advice myself. What do you think about it? --jdx ^Re: 20:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to advice me. Also, see here (the point 3). There's written that Warn the vandal about the consequences of their actions using {{Test}}, {{Test2}}, etc. --Kaulder (contribs | talk) 02:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kaulder: I don't think that the point #3 is intended for anonymous vandals. Given that the most of IP numbers is assigned dynamically for a short period, warning anonymous vandals just doesn't make sense. Also blocking policy mentioned earlier doesn't require it. --jdx ^Re: 07:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Point #3 do also refers to anonymous vandals, it refers to vandals in general, which means all vandals, whether they are registered or not, are included. Those who revert vandalism at enwiki warns every vandal, even those that are in dynamic IP addresses (they also add a note for good users in the dynamic IP range that if you are not the one who did the vandalism, register an account to avoid those warnings). I think we should do the same. Anyway, there's no policy saying that warning anonymous vandals is mandatory, nor a policy saying that warning anonymous vandals is not allowed (nor saying that it is completely useless). It depends on your strategy whether if you will warn them or not. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 02:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Kaulder, it is useless to warn the vandal after he already blocked and it even encourage him to keep the vandalism. Reporting to ANV or AN/U is much more effective her. Don't waste time on notifying ip vandals after they were blocked.-- Geagea (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Geagea: Ok. I will do the same as you told. --Kaulder (contribs | talk) 06:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Poke that all vandals should be treated the same way. They should be warned before blocking them regardless of weather they are registered or not. IPs are human too. The only difference between a registered user and an IP contributor is that a registered user's IP address is hidden. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
There is no obligation to follow en.wikipedia's policy. In de.wikipedia anonymous users are mostly warned after the first vandal edit and immediately blocked for a 6-hours-period after the second, but in clear cases there often is no warning before the block. More than one warning is waste of time. If they decide to contribute useful stuff, they just have to wait for a few hours. --Leyo 22:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no such policy on en:wikipedia that vandals should be warned multiple times and there is no place on this thread where it was suggested that such should be followed. Of course, warning them multiple times amount to a waste of time but they should be warned. However, if the vandal has been previously blocked in one or more project, they may be blocked without warning if their edits here suggest that they are not here to build a repository of files. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Running an unauthorized bot

What is the normal procedure when we see an unauthorized bot being run? Is it to block on sight or to give warning? Specifically I'm referring to 1640maxBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who does not appear to have gone through a formal request to make edits. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This is not the English Wikipedia, if someone wants to make automated edits they can have a go. If the edits are disruptive, you should raise that with the operator then follow COM:BP if there is good cause to do so. If the edits made ought to have a bot flag, then they should be encouraged to apply for it.

Pinging as a courtesy, please don't forget to notify the subject of notices. @1640max: --Fæ (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

According to COM:Bots, "All bots running on Wikimedia Commons must have advance permission to do so. Permission is needed whether or not the bot requires a bot flag." If you become aware of an unapproved bot I'd suggest notifying the bot owner, asking them to stop immediately, and telling them they need to seek approval. If the bot continue to run after the notification it should be blocked without further ado, pending formal approval. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

That document is not a policy, is not enforced in any literal sense, and does not actually make sense for the Commons project. There was some discussion in 2009 by 3 people about how it might be agreed as policy, and the effective vote was 2 people against 1.

The example account given here has made a trivial number of edits, and the account holder could just as easily run their ~~reporting~~ updates from their main account and nobody would notice, or care. In practice we now regularly see users applying tools like VFC to make huge numbers of complex edits, but the bot requests process is considered irrelevant.

If anyone wishes to create an enforceable policy to block accounts that are noticed making automated edits unless they go through the requests procedure for every automated project, they should make a proposal to the community. In practice, the request procedure is for managing bot flags, and is never used to stop contributors from using automated tools and creating scripts to run sensible automated edits that do not need the bot flag. This same point was made in 2009 and never properly addressed. --Fæ (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Blocking policy has included provisions for blocking unauthorized or non-responsive bot accounts since 2006. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, no issue with that as policy, it makes sense when contributions are disruptive in some way. In the case of this account, the edits made are not of a quantity that we would even want to review as a test run. Compare that to the usage we see of VFC, where people routinely make many thousands of complex edits within minutes, yet are not required to discuss their work or gain any advance approval.

Please also keep in mind my experience of a bot approval taking 12 months. Considering the limited engagement at bot/requests, making requiring official approval for all 'bot-like' automated tasks regardless of size or sensibility is impractical, and potentially harmful for those of us that wish to run occasional one-off housekeeping tasks. I certainly would just leave housekeeping undone if I had to make an official request every time, or maybe it's okay to wangle around it by labelling them VFC edits so nobody cares. --Fæ (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The operator has replied to my notice on their home page at ru, given on the bot user page diff (as nobody else was bothered to discuss it with them). The handful of edits were made by accident as the bot account is intended to be used on the Russian Wiktionary. I recommend good faith and a more collaborative approach than looking for reasons to block accounts is applied in future, especially when discussion has yet to be attempted. I believe this thread can be closed. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Fenelon1.jpg & File:Fenelon2.jpg & File:Fenelon3.jpg

All these 3 images are from the City of Belo Horizonte flickr photostream with a Public Domain Mark Images. Are they PD since it is from a government organization or should a DR be filed here. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: Given that they are of the same person, but spread over a period of decades, I really doubt the municipality owns the copyrights... they might be PD for some reason, but we don't know why. - Revent^talk 11:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Joalpe. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it has to be delete here. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Error en Template:Other

Hay un error en la plantilla {{Other}}, como se puede ver en File:Hórreo 2 (32455867285).jpg si el parámtro 3 (size) se deja vacío no aparece la descripción y en su lugar aparece px cuando debería de ser el tamaño (size) por defecto y aparecer la descripción igual que se ve en File:Hórreo 1 (32304763062).jpg (aunque ahí sí que puse el tamaño). --Jcfidy (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Hello Jcfidy, thanks for report. I fixed the template. ↔ User: Perhelion 21:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Gary Bettman in 2016.jpg

Dear Admins,

I had filed a DR on this picture because the flickr license is public domain mark. But now I see the flickr account profile states that it is NORAD NORTHCOM PA Photography which could or could not be the US government. I don't know what this means but if it a US government employee's work then the image should be PD...and the DR should be closed as keep ASAP.

My only concern is that there are only 2 other images from this account on Commons here:

If they are US government work, they can all be passed by an Admin....but there should be a few more images on Commons. Does anyone, User:Jameslwoodward or User:Revent know the answer? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment: This looks like US government work as the flickr account appears linked to NORAD Northern Command or NORAD which should be PD. You learn a new thing every day still even after 8-9 years on Commons. I will have to pass the images but invite an Admin to confirm my decision. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: The 'other two' are fine as {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}}... the Flickr titles are Commons:VIRIN IDs. Given that, and the type of images on that Flickr account, it's almost certainly okay as well. - Revent^talk 10:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank You Revent, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

野坂和之進 (talk · contribs)

This user has registered by mistake on commons. He hopes for the deletion of the account.--Y.haruo (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

see Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:削除の方針--Y.haruo (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

User accounts cannot be deleted at all because that would violate the GFDL and Creative Commons licenses for any contribution made by a user. The usual way for situations like this is just to abandon the account and stop using it. I have also closed the mistaken deletion request. De728631 (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I tell that Commons cannot delete the account to him.--Y.haruo (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Telif inceleme.png

A vector version of this file is available at [5]. So, please use the vector version.--FightWe (talk) 09:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The file is edit-protected so I added the {{SVG available}} notice to its page. It's being used in a number of templates, so if those are not protected, the png image can be replaced by anyone. De728631 (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@De728631: please protect SVG file.User:FightWe 10:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Done De728631 (talk) 10:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@FightWe: It is a real svg? I see a graphic embedded. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Seriously? This file is a {{BadSVG}}, adding no value at all. I nominated it for deletion. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedydeleted fake svg before it is getting used again. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Done FightWe blocked as vandalism sock of User:Jhony jhony ha ji, will clean up now. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I encourage every administrator to read User:Jhony jhony ha ji as this is a high activity, long time vandal that often interacts with admins and tries to get them to do things, but is easy to spot. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Meh, thank you for cleaning this up. De728631 (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Drawings by Vorona Aleksander looks to requiring OTRS

Looking at that category the reputed artist/contributo has modern paintings. To one uploaded today I have added {{No permissions}} though it would seem to me that many need that. I am wondering whether a Russian speaker may be able to have a conversation and sort out the issue. Thanks if anyone can. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Source site has no copyright message. Taivo (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The map File:Apostasy laws in 2013.SVG is erroneous and urgently must be corrected.

All the five central Asian countries Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are officially and strictly secular, and Islam (and any other religion) has no official status whatsoever and there are definitely no apostasy laws in any of those countries. Incitement of hatred laws in those countries are totally separate laws with no connection to Islam. That is why all the Central Asian countries must be removed from this map. The source is already provided in the weblink of this map file: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/apostasy/

A2D2 (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is supposed to be an administrative matter in this. - Jmabel ! talk 01:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done. No admin action is needed. I think, that you are right: central Asian countries are officially secular. Please make your old map. If this is better, then other projects will start to use it instead current. Taivo (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

What template is used for a screenshot of a program or website authored by someone else?

File:Rader Christ Luteran.jpg was recently uploaded, and is declared with the {{Self}} template. I'm sure the contributor made the screenshot himself; but the underlying web page itself was (I assume) not authored by him.

I think the {{Self}} is the wrong license tag here. The act of taking a screenshot of a preexisting work isn't authorship, and is analogous to photocopying a preexisting work. What tag should be used in this case?

The image has very little on it that's not simple text; the only thing that could possibly give rise to a copyright claim are the logos, and as I understand Wikimedia Commons rules, that's no reason to disqualify it. I'm not calling for deletion, and I thank User:Semore1898 for uploading it; it's a worthy addition to the en Wikipedia article Dennis Rader. I just want to ensure it's marked correctly. TJRC (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi TJRC,

A permission from the website is needed. This is very unlikely to be OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

For this file {{Copyvio}} is the appropriate template, but if all parts are ineligible or under a free license, you can use {{Free screenshot}}. Jcb (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, rats; not what I intended, but thank you. TJRC (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Info of permission error message

Hi, I've reverted a edit (diff) which is identified as vandalism. I've got error message ("you don't have permission.....") and tagged as "License review by non-image-reviewers". I want to know, if i have done any mistake? Regards, Kaulder (contribs | talk) 06:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I hope, I have not done anything wrong. --Kaulder (contribs | talk) 07:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Everything's fine, you did well. By reverting vandal's edit you added {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}} to the file what triggered an action defined in one of AbuseFilter's rules (i.e. showing the message in this case). BTW. It isn't an error message, it's a warning message. Some things on Commons simply are not supposed to be done by ordinary users. --jdx ^Re: 07:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh ! Okay.

Kaulder (contribs | talk) 08:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Kaulder (contribs | talk) 11:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Dealing with people who nominate for deletion without a reason

How do you deal with proposals done without a reason like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cătălina Ponor.PNG?Ionutzmovie (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

This is an example of pure vandalism. I just speedy delete such DR if no one except the vandal edited it. Other admins usually speedy close them (because it's faster). I also revert edits related to the DR. --jdx ^Re: 09:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

It depends. This request was speedily kept as vandalistic nomination. But working in DR-s I often see uploader's requests on uploading week without rationale. I'll close them speedily. Sometimes I leave such requests open, but I comment them. Taivo (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, next time I'll ask for speedy delete.Ionutzmovie (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Partnering for Prosperity Education For Green and Inclusive Growth.pdf

This file was tagged for lack of permissions. Whats the proper procedure for this? On page 3 bottom right, the permissions are written there. MechQuester (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I've updated the summary to make it clear where the permission statement for this document can be found. I've also removed the lack of permission note, added a license review, and fixed the license, since it was incorrect. —RP88 (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —RP88 (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistent lengths of block period

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T156453

Has somebody already seen something like this: File:InconsistentBlockPeriod.png? I'm sure that I've blocked the IP for 2 days. Please do not change the blockade yet – let's wait ~43 hours and see what happens. --jdx ^Re: 07:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

quarry:query/15829 quarry:query/15830 Indeed. Weird. I'm looking into it --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Matma Rex: Sorry to bug you again, but I sense a regression from your commit. 4 decades, 7 years sounds like Unix epoch. Relative vs absolute timestamp failure? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I noticed the same issue one day earlier on Wikidata:

English: 14:44, 25 January 2017 Pasleim (talk | contribs) blocked 189.204.182.10 (talk) with an expiration time of 31 hours (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) (Vandalism)
German: 14:44, 25. Jan. 2017 Pasleim (Diskussion | Beiträge) sperrte 189.204.182.10 (Diskussion) für eine Dauer von 4 Jahrzehnte, 7 Jahre, 26 Tage, 11 Stunden, 11 Minuten und 46 Sekunden (nur Anonyme, Erstellung von Benutzerkonten gesperrt) (Vandalism)

--Leyo 08:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Zhuyifei1999: I've just looked at the list of my recent blocks and I think that the problem appears when one chooses nonstandard duration, i.e. Other time:. --jdx ^Re: 09:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I know. I submitted a patch already :P --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Great, but the script in this case seems still a bit bad hackish programming. The date var is only a number, so why the hell is there taken an English text string for translation?? ↔ User: Perhelion 10:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, feel free to submit a patch to make it less hackish ;) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Whoops, my apologies. I'll get the fix deployed on Monday. I hope no one is too inconvenienced by fake 47-year blocks in the meantime ;) The actual, correct block duration (in English) will appear in a tooltip if you hover the mouse cursor over the translated one. Matma Rex (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Change has been deployed by hashar --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

weird set of oggs

In the current Duplicate page [6] there is a weird set of 29 supposedly empty ogg files - any one with clues to verify or explain the issue? JarrahTree (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

They sound just fine to me. Why do you say they are empty? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that - my computer setting must be wrong - so there is no problem with them being deleted as duplicates then JarrahTree (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Ahmad Zaki Yamani.jpg

Please hide/delete the intermediate versions of this file - copyvio of [7] and no evidence of permission respectively. GermanJoe (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Telenor Wikipedia Zero issue

Just an update from the OTRS ticket on the embedded file problem on traffic from Telenor in Myanmar. Traffic was about 200GB/day on Wikipedia/Wikimedia in early January, with peaks at around 350GB. Once the Fair use policy was started on the 17th, the traffic fell like a stone, and is now a steady 50GB/day. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the fall immediately. --jdx ^Re: 00:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I guesstimate 100,000 daily visitors and 150-500 pirate downloaders. Are any WP Zero stats public? If anyone's concerned, I previously calculate the 150 MB/day limit would get 1,500+ articles or 1,500 media viewer images. —Dispenser (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete logo

I will like this logo image of the Royal College of Music deleted - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Royal_College_of_Music_logo.jpg/80px-Royal_College_of_Music_logo.jpg because in emails its superseding the new image - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_College_of_Music_Logo.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengakeyboard (talk • contribs) 13:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

We usually keep old versions of a logo for historical reference. If there are technical problems with one of the images please be more specific about the problem. De728631 (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Globalrenamerequest-pretext

I noticed that this message contains an outdated text: Once you have requested a new username, a notification will be sent to Wikimedia stewards to perform the rename. It is not only stewards who can rename now. So, it should be replaced with: Once you have requested a new username, a notification will be sent to global renamers and stewards to perform the rename. Ruslik (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: The text is imported from MediaWiki:Globalrenamerequest-pretext/en, which is imported from translatewiki. Thus this needs a update at translatewiki/mwi18n. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Uploading book covers that I scanned and posted that are in the public domain

How do I upload book covers that I personally scanned that are clearly in the public domain without getting my account blocked? This used to be simple with the old guide to uploading images. Now you almost need a copyright lawyer. I find this very disheartening and am on the verge of giving up being a Wikipedia editor. So please explain to me the proper way of doing this without referring me to a page full of confusing templates. It almost seems there are more Wikipedia enforcers than there are editors trying to expand he knowledge base.PKDASD (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@PKDASD: Are you talking about your recently deleted file File:Dead on the bones.jpg? That file is the book cover to the 2016 work Dead on the bones by Joe R. Lansdale. The cover illustration is not in the public domain, it is a recent non-free work by Timothy Truman (see here). If Timothy Truman is willing to give us permission to distribute his work under a free license you can use the procedure at COM:OTRS. On the other hand, if you want to upload a scan of a different book cover that is public domain, perhaps one scanned from a book first published in the U.S. before 1923, you can use Special:UploadWizard, which will walk you through the necessary steps (choose the "the copyright has definitely expired in the USA" option). —RP88 (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

file:Kde Vnc 01.png

Please hide or delete other revisions (except blacked out and pixelated) of this file, was contained non-libre/non-free/copyrighted elements from Microsoft Windows 98. HarvettFox96 (talk) 09:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC), edited on 17:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Done Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Citar página

Creo que sería conveniente activaren el menú de la deracha un enlace a Special:CiteThisPage para que sea fácilmente accesible a quienes reutilicen archivos de Commons, es decir que al pulsar el link les aparezca esto (así no hay escusa del tipo "es que no sé cómo hacerlo). La idea me surge de este hilo del café en español. --Jcfidy (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jcfidy: Probably the best place for this suggestion is Commons:Village pump/Proposals. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Srittau: Thenks,

Done here. --Jcfidy (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Possible user issue

Someone may want to have a look at this guy. New user rapidly uploading apparently copyrighted videos. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fahim148. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Done Blocked for a day. Yann (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

File to be replaced manually

Hello. I couldn't replace a file because it was over the 100MB limit. I had to re-upload the file under a new name with the chunk uploader. I have the move access, but not the replace access to do it myself.

Old file to be replaced : File:Renel - La fille de l'Île-Rouge, roman d'amours malgaches, 1924.djvu
with this one : File:Renel - La fille de l'Île-Rouge, roman d'amours malgaches, 1924 (2).djvu

Thanks a lot. This new file was done to replace the old one with an OCR problem. --Ernest-Mtl (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Done Yann (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Mermaid dress.jpg

Dear Admins,

If this image is unfree, please feel free to delete. The uploader has a problematic uploading history. The statement that it is "PD-because the license changed" makes little sense to me. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Done: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mermaid dress.jpg. Yann (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank You, Yann. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to delete intermediate edits of a file

I unwisely edited Symbol thunder.svg. Could someone tell me whether it is possible to delete the intermediate edits I made (the thumbnail of my edit is still shown in the page) or not? I would like to erase all the edit I made on January 15, 2017 except the last one when I started a regular deleting request. If it is not possible please delete at least the image I uploaded before reverting it, since I consider it now vandalism. Thanks in advance.--Carnby (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Carnby:

Done Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Threshold for originality?

I've marked some of these contributions for SD as obviously copyrighted movie posters. There are others though that consist entirely of text, (e.g. MARVEL: CAPTAIN AMERICA CIVIL WAR Coming 01-01-1900). These are obviously not "own work" but since it's just text, I'm not sure if it's copyrighted or not, as, for example, the Marvel logo isn't because it doesn't meet Commons:Threshold of originality. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. These were in fact all copyvios because the textlogos were rendered with 3-dimensional effects. De728631 (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah. I figured there was something I was missing. Didn't know at what point combining non-original pieces began to constitute originality. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Multiple obviously copyrighted company logos

Somebody probably should take a look through these contributions. Pretty much just mass uploading of company logos from http://logos.wikia.com/. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Doing Yann (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Revision delete

I have requested oversight action on this too, but until it happens, can you kindly delete the revisions here where I edited while accidentally logged out, to protect my privacy? Thanks. Huji (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Done for now. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Possibly inappropriate block

This seems to start from Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Images by rana & sugandhi. @Jameslwoodward: , who began the deletion request, has now blocked the user(s) in question. This does not seem to me to be a constructive way to resolve this. Since I'm also involved in the discussion, I'm not the one to remove the block, but I think it should be removed so that the most affected parties can be involved in the discussion to sort this out. See also https://www.facebook.com/groups/375240906187977/permalink/384693338576067/?comment_id=385025651876169, where some relevant discussion has taken place off wiki. - Jmabel ! talk 15:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There are three factors here.

First, it is well established that Commons accounts belong to individuals. Users come in all qualities. We have honest, careful, knowledgeable users, some who are none of those, and users in every combination of them. Having three major roles (Admin, Bureaucrat, and Checkuser), I get to know that pretty well. Since active Administrators, in particular, are in short supply -- 90% of Admin work (1500 deletions every day, among other things) is done by fewer than 25 people -- it is important to Commons that we be able to work fast and accurately. Over time we get to know most of the active users -- who can be trusted to be honest, knowledgeable, and careful, and who cannot. If accounts have more than one user, then Admins lose that important help to their work. I sincerely hope that both husband and wife here are honest, careful, and knowledgeable, but we don't know that yet.

Second, users develop a record here and, if they become active contributors, ask for advanced rights. If one of this couple decides to become an OTRS volunteer, a License Reviewer, or an Admin, we have no record to look at that belongs to that individual. Using an account jointly effectively prohibits them from having any advanced role -- it even prohibits being auto-patrolled, which adds a burden to patrollers.

Third, while I certainly hope that this marriage lasts until death, many marriages do not. I don't want Commons to be in the middle of a divorce ten or twenty years from now. While copyrights can be owned jointly, such an agreement would have to be drafted and reviewed by a lawyer and then provided to OTRS.

For these reasons, it seems to me vastly easier for all concerned if they contribute separately.

As Jmabel has suggested, I have unblocked the account for the purposes of the discussion. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I saw Jim's question on the talk page and the reply. But the reply is a bit vague to me. It is clear that Rana & Sugandhi are two people; but not sure whether this account is operated by both or Sugandhi alone. I think it is acceptable if the latter is true. Copyright is a different matter and each individual is qualified to grant a free license for joint-copyright per an early explanation by the legal. J e e 16:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

As free licenses are irrevocable, I don't really how a copyright issue could come in. For the purpose of rights, it doesn't matter to me who is really behind the keyboard, as long as the behaviour is consistent. If a decision is to be made, I would decide what to do only considering what the account did. If there is a good record after some time, why not give them more rights? If they upload copyvios, I would block them regardless. The spouse excuse would not work here more than anywhere else. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Yann, I'm uncomfortable with that. I doubt that the WMF rules allow any of the privacy related accounts (OTRS, CU) to have two people using them. And, again, what happens to the account in the case of a divorce? So, I think we have to ask them to agree that they will never ask for advanced rights of any sort.

As for copyright, if they uploaded images not as "own work", but in each case naming the one of them that was the author, and we had an OTRS message, signed by both, that told us that both agreed to the arrangement, then I think it would be all right. Of course each image would have to have {{Permission OTRS}} added by an OTRS volunteer, which is a nuisance for all. If it's only going to be a few images per year, no problem, but if it's a few per week that adds an administrative burden that we don't need.

In view of that, I still think it is simpler for them to use separate accounts.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, privacy related accounts are completely different. But we are talking here about new users, and I don't see any issue for them to have a joint account. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Info An OTRS email (Ticket#2017020610003549) has been received claiming joint ownership of copyright in the images at Category:Images by rana & sugandhi. I don't think that's actually possible unless either (1) both took every photograph (unlikely), or (2) there has been a written copyright assignment (no indication of that). Regardless of the username, I don't think that the claimed copyright information is currently valid. It's better, as Jim says, for us to require separate accounts. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You don't think it's possible for a married couple to agree to share joint ownership of their possessions without a written agreement? Really? Andy Mabbett (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment It will be much simpler with two accounts, furthermore accounts are easy to create! I'm in favor to block this account and that they create two accounts. And if we start to accept that once: "We are a husband-and-wife team", so we will have to accept that again or it will be unfair. The former block by Jim with the rationale "Inappropriate username" was fine for me, as me too I find that disruptive. And disruptive username have to be blocked. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment It is not uncommon to operate under a common account for a couple and to have a credit line refering to both. While I agree with Jameslwoodward that this is problematic at Commons (and likewise at other Wikimedia projects), I think it would have been better to resolve this without blocking. I think we should first clarify here whether we have indeed a “joint authorship” according to the copyright law of India. Perhaps Rana & Sugandhi can help to explain this. According to article 2 (d) (iv) of the Copyright Act of India “author” means in relation to a photograph, the person taking the photograph. And according to article 2 (z) a “work of joint authorship” means a work produced by the collaboration of two or more authors in which the contribution of one author is not distinct from the contribution of the other author or authors. According to the explanation attached to article 13, each of the authors has to make an independently copyrightable contribution. Usually the photographer is the author and that's it. But if, for example, one of them suggests a particular setup, composition etc. and the other takes the photograph this could be indeed be a joint work. According to US copyright law, a joint authorship enables each of the authors to use the work freely in regard to the copyright law without asking the other for consent, see here and Brod v. General Publishing Group, Inc. I am not sure how this is seen by the case law of India. But if this is handled similarly, each of them could possibly release the joint work under a free license. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'd also point out that they can specify the "Rana & Sugandhi" attribution independent of who operates the account. - Jmabel ! talk 21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  - Indeed. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment 1. Account operations: As I commented here, I talked with Sugandhi and she agreed she alone is the account operator. 2. Copyright: The photographs maybe taken by either Rana or Sugandhi; but they prefer not to keep them separately. They may be taking photographs together, using same camera. One maybe setting up the device and hold the camera while other push the button; who knows. This is not the first case where we meet a couple releasing their works to Commons. Biopics questioned it and seems solved later. I can't see the ticket; but it seems Green Giant handled that ticket. J e e 03:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

On that basis I'd suggest that Sugandhi alone should be the account holder, but that copyright should be specified as being held jointly by virtue of an agreement between the two of them, to be lodged with OTRS. Indian law in this respect is identical to UK law, and if that suggestion would be acceptable to them I could very easily prepare a simple one-paragraph agreement for them to sign. Can you check and let me know? I can follow up via OTRS email if agreed, but as you're already in contact with them you might want to make the initial approach. MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks MichaelMaggs. I had asked Sugandhi to mention on the user page that she alone is the account operator. She agreed; but travelling now. If you send me a format of the agreement for them to sign, I'm happy to help them to sign it and send back to you. I've no problem if it was send directly to them from OTRS too. Anyway I'm in touch with her and can help them. It may take some time as she was travelling now. J e e 05:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment could someone tell me if I have understood this correctly? Someone has kindly agreed to upload their photos to Commons and so far they have had their photos nominated for deletion, their account blocked and the possibility of their marriage ending discussed on a public web page by strangers? I think it is reasonable to say this is not a good way to encourage people to contribute to Wikimedia projects....... --John Cummings (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You are indeed correct. It's shameful. Andy Mabbett (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It happened; sadly. Anyway the account is unblocked and we (me and MichaelMaggs) can helps to complete the OTRS formalities when Sugandhi returned. She is travelling now. So I suggest any watching admin to close and archive this discussion. The DR too can be closed as further communication is possible through her talk. Pinging odder too. J e e 11:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

What can we do to improve the process or advice given to people trying to share their images where there are similar problems to this? --John Cummings (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Account: We don't have a user account policy. We don't need one as a user account is for whole projects under Wikimedia. Nowhere it mentioned a registered user is limited to one person. But it can be assumed except for Commons:Role accounts considering the complexity on how to handle if a dispute raised. wmf:Terms of Use is the one every user is obliged to agree; I saw nowhere about such a operative restriction.

Copyright: As AFBorchert said above, a joint authorship enables each of the authors to use the work freely in regard to the copyright law without asking the other for consent. Everything else, like asking proof for joint-copyright is not a requirement here; I think. Everywhere (Flickr, blog, etc.) it is published that way. When we need an OTRS confirmation is when we see a past publication contradicting to what is said here. Still a normal OTRS to verify the account may good, considering the past publication. One good example is User:Davidvraju. J e e 12:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment. I think that Jim is correct. According to the law transferring of copyright should be in written. But we made this simple way of transferring the copyright to public domain. If you are the photographer you release the copyright by pushing the button which means that you declare I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license. Only I can the release. Any other way of uploading by others requires OTRS permission and makes the things complicated. Let's make it simple as should they be. Two accounts is the best simple way.-- Geagea (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Jee has said that the editors in question are travelling, and until they return we should avoid more unnecessary drama here. I've made a couple of suggestions on their talk page, and we can perhaps simply wait now to see what they have to say. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes; I had informed her about the proposal MichaelMaggs brought forward. Requested to reply to the mail and add necessary information on the user page to clarify that the account is single operated. She may need some time as travelling now. Will update. J e e 16:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

This Mass DR

I filed a mass DR of Public Domain Mark licensed images but someone refuses to accept the nomination. (It is not the uploader though). Feel free to make a response for or against. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Going to close this DR, for the outcome is obvious. Unfortunately some users have the hobby to leave uninformed nonsense comments in DRs. Luckely most of the time they do not succeed to influence the outcome with their nonsense. Jcb (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the images were copyright violations. The DR should have stayed open for 7 days, not closed early. --Fæ (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Being "licensed" (in the lightest of terms) under a possible (still unclear consensus it seems...? despite ~5 VP discussions and an RfC) unacceptable revocable "license", seems to indicate that it should be treated as any other file from flick which is e.g. nc, nd, or ARR. (t) Josve05a (c) 23:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

So what? The DR should have been open for 7 days. Yes, the Flickr owner might change the license in the future (the problem is that we think this license is revocable) and the DR could be closed as a delete, but the DR should still be open for 7 days as this is not a speedy deletion case. --Fæ (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I have written a Flickrmail to Beadmobile, who is the copyright holder for the images, asking for clarification in their licensing. This appears to be a step that no participant in the DR bothered to try. --Fæ (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I've already done so as well as commented on one picture, asking for the user to change the license...so now we're tag-spamming ;) (t) Josve05a (c) 23:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I tend to miss comments on images (I have 74,000 on Flickr) and this account has a high photo count too. Flickrmails are worth trying in those circumstances. --Fæ (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And thanks to Jcb we will have a ton of extra work if you guys succeed. Another job well done Jcb.... Let's just rush giant mass DR's instead off giving people some time to resolve things. Natuur12 (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

If we succeed, I would be more than happy to undelete the files personally, given the subject of them :) Note, that this statement does not constitute as an agreement or contract, that I will actually do it :p (t) Josve05a (c) 23:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I filed a mass DR because the uploader (not the person objecting to the deletion) was uploading hundreds of images with the PDM license. The uploader has not objected or commented to the DR. I agree that the images should be kept if the flickr account owner changes the license to an acceptable license or gives COM:OTRS permission. However, at least the uploader (Victorgrigas) now knows what the correct flickr license is since he has not uploaded any more images with a PDM 'license.' PS: The majority of the images in this category with the title "Women's March" were also uploaded in the past by Victorgrigas and I have not targeted them as there were 300+ images in the mass DR above alone. It may have been Slowking4 who 'edited' their licenses. Maybe someone else can contact that flickr account owner for those undeleted images if they wish. I usually now flickrmail people for images that I wish to upload...since I got some angry flickrmail messages from flickr account owners wondering who put their images on Commons in the past. (and it was not me) when I tried to save some. I saved some images and other times, I got burned. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Files uploaded by GifTagger: Actual uploaders are not properly notified for deletions

I found a serious issue with the tagging/nomination of files uploaded by GifTagger.

Several users know that GiTagger is different than other bots like Flickr upload bot or File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske): Unlike other bots, for files uploaded by GifTagger is required to notify the actual uploader, since these files has been uploaded first to Commons by a human, and is needed to convert the GIFs to PNG (just a format conversion for technical purposes).

So, what is the problem? The problem here is most of the users don't take the time to notify the actual uploader, and that should be done manually (by moving the message to the Human User's Talk page); failing to notify the actual uploader is a violation of the Deletion policy. The seriousness of this is the fact that most of the Admins are failing to notify the actual uploader, and this is why I'm posting this here.

I think that the admins should enforce the policies, and review the tools to notify the actual uploader if someone nominates/tags for deletion a file uploaded by GifTagger. --Amitie 10g (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a systemic failure to identify original uploaders for all derived and overwritten files, not limited to this one bot. Perhaps we should have a Phabricator ticket to propose a better solution than picking out the name of the most recent uploader? It's worth getting right, especially when we are tracking uploaders making copyright claims or tracking vandalism or warning repeat copyright violators.

Most regular contributors are surprised to find themselves receiving notices about images which they never uploaded and never made a release statement for, but may have cropped or overwritten with a higher resolution version. It's a common problem for this project and one without any solutions I've noticed to date. --Fæ (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons talk:Questionable Flickr images again

Can we get an admin to look over/add the flickr accounts listed on Commons talk:Questionable Flickr images to the Bad Authors list please? We've got 6 accounts to add to the list and one (@mikeownby) that needs to be moved from above the table into the table itself. Thanks, Elisfkc (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Jim Justice speaks at inauguration.jpg & File:Governor Justice Watches the Presidential Inauguration.jpg

Dear Admins,

Can these two PDM images be passed? Its issued by a US state (not federal) government. (West Virginia). Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: I don't think they are okay with 'just' the PDM... West Virginia is not (AFAIK) one of the states that has a law releasing it's works to the PD. (see en:Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments. - Revent^talk 02:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank You @Revent: This clears things up a lot. I will file a DR on the first of them. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem is this South Carolina image was kept based on different criteria. The uploader MB298 who also uploaded the South Carolina image may refer to this image as he already included a link to it here. Commons can sometimes be inconsistent in its application of its rules. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

COM:CENSOR

I'm fairly sure this falls under the protection of the policy, but just checking that there is in-fact no otherwise legal reason why we would take an issue with a user uploading images that appear to be...supportive of suicide bombers. TimothyJosephWood 13:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking at a sample, I see no legal content-based reason why the photographs should not be hosted on Commons. Of themselves they are not materials that 'support' terrorism. Other reasons for potential removal, such as copyright are a separate issue. --Fæ (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be rather the opposite. See, for example, File:Gh122.jpg and File:H.B.11.jpg which appear to depict the graves of victims of the 1998 killing of Iranian diplomats in Afghanistan. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Imgur filenames

Moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/01#Imgur filenames

Discussion concerning Commons

A Com admin may want to weigh in on this conversation happening at w:WP:ANI. TimothyJosephWood 13:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Please make sure you notify the person you are talking about. @Gavin.C.Fernandes: . Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. TimothyJosephWood 15:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the account because this user did nothing but upload non-free images as "own work". De728631 (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, was about to do this when I noticed you deleting their uploads, didn't want to conflict on the block. Nick (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Overly vague filenames

What is the procedure for handling these? I am thinking of File:Kings.jpg Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

See the criteria and guidance at Commons:File renaming. --Fæ (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, that covers the "rename" bit but not what - if anything - to do with the leftover overly vague redirect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

When I split history of a file or rename a file, I just delete such a leftovers because they are vague.

--jdx ^Re: 20:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

But for non-admin filemovers, you'll have to use a speedy on the redirect and hope to encounter an admin colleague willing to delete the thingy, as there's no really offcial guideline to that. I'm restraining myself to only ask for deletion of move leftovers when I'm correcting true errors in naming (wrong species, places or persons names, for instance), because those are the easiest cases for a reasoning under COM:GCSD #2 and #6. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

IMO CSD #G2 applies here. E.g. when you are moving Lake.jpg to its proper name, you can delete the redirect after moving because is so general that it makes it implausible. --jdx ^Re: 07:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

In the past, our usual procedure with these names was to redirect them to File:Name.jpg or to just full creation protect them. Simply deleting redirects leaves the vague name open for future uploaders. lNeverCry 08:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

bollywoodhungama.com and OTRS ticket 2008030310010794

Based on the overwrite history of File:Manish_Malhotra_at_WIFT's_felicitation.jpg, it looks like bollywoodhungama may be overwriting their photographs at the source linked. I see no evidence that uploads by @Boseritwik: were ever made in bad faith, nor that the OTRS ticket was deliberately misused. The consequence is that we lack evidence that the original uploaded photograph is covered by the OTRS ticket and anyone checking the source link sees a different image which has no explanation.

As a precaution, I do not believe we should allow use of the bollywoodhungama OTRS ticket for uploaders that cannot take personal responsibility for confirming the ticket, and we probably should not allow any original upload to be overwritten and instead insist on them being separate files with separate verification. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hrm, I don't see any overwriting in the example you gave. This image from BH is identical to the original upload at File:Manish_Malhotra_at_WIFT's_felicitation.jpg. Apart from that the licence was reviewed shortly after the first upload. Did I miss something? De728631 (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Oops I cut and pasted the wrong link, that was another in the same upload set. The image I was questioning is File:Jennifer Winget at the launch of Watch Time's magazine 11.jpg as flagged on the BLP report. --Fæ (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I see. The original source link there was not overwritten by BH but it is totally dead [8]. It was later replaced at Commons with a different link to a different photo while the old image at Commons remained unchanged. Much later, someone decided to upload the corresponding picture at Commons. What is strange though is that the original BH link that was reviewed is no longer active. De728631 (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Cut-off date for {{PD-old}}

I have started a discussion at VPC (see here) to see if we can come to a generic cut-off date for image from PMA+70 countries of which we do know (about) the date of creation, but we do not know when the author died. Your particiation will be appreciated. Jcb (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Request to delete subpage of my own user page

Hi! I'd like to delete page User:SMAUG/EditCounterOptIn.js which is subpage of my own user page. It's javascript page so I couldn't use template {{delete}} there. -SMAUG (Talk – Contributions) 16:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Done --AFBorchert (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --SMAUG (Talk – Contributions) 16:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate conduct

Hello, I nominated a photo for deletion here. The uploader of this photo proceeded to remove the deletion discussion and to tell me to "F**K" myself at their user page here. I wanted to bring this to the administrators' attention; my apologies if this is the wrong place to write this. Regards — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 04:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

FWIW The editor had also overwritten the text on the FFD page - If they don't like their images being deleted then they shouldn't be uploading here... common sense really, I'd support a 1 day block just for the dickish behaviour tbh. –Davey2010^Talk 04:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Done For now I have warned him about 3 different things: Special:Diff/233265104/233453188. Let's see what happens next. --jdx ^Re: 06:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Issue with an administrator not being cooperative with sister wikis

For the second time I have requested fellow administrator Srittau to be cooperative to the Wikisources when they are undertaking deletions, and all I get are unhelpful responses.

Commons:Administrators talks about the community role. I quote Administrators are expected to understand the goals of this project, and be prepared to work constructively with others towards those ends. Administrators should also understand and follow Commons' policies, and where appropriate, respect community consensus. It has been practice here for administrators to work with the sister wikis to manage images, and work cooperatively. Not to simply refuse. It is a clear goal stated within the scope that Commons is a shared media site for all the wikis, so there is the expectation that Commons administrators think outside the simple box of Commons.

In the deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:The International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes.pdf, I asked in the discussion that if the decision was deletion, could the closing administrator please leave a note at the Wikisource (with a link provided) so that we could do the required cleanup prior to deletion. The file was deleted without notification, causing problems at English Wikisource, not even the courtesy of a local ping. When questioned, I was given an inane response about doing it myself, and not expecting others to do it (DR talk page). At the talk page, I questioned that if they were unwilling to do the little extra leg work, then maybe refrain from those deletions. I also formally requested on their talk page that they excuse themselves from deletions at the Wikisources, which just met with a one word dismissal.

This followed a previous issue in another DR where a djvu file was deleted. That file should have been marked to be transferred to English Wikisource so it could be moved prior to deletion {{PD-US-1923-abroad-delete}} . The deletion caused problems (as usual). There was a comment in [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Twelve men of Bengal in the nineteenth century (1910).djvu| that indicated that file could be transferred to the wiki. There followed another conversation on the DR talk page. So while the admin may have been ignorant of the issue on the first occasion, they were not unaware on the second occasion. Noting that on neither occasion have I disputed the decision to delete, nor taken any issue with the decision.

The purpose of Commons includes being the home for media files for shared usage across the Wikimedias. Accordingly it requires admins here to have a broader mindset, to have consideration for the wikis. If this doesn't happen then the system of a central repository breaks down. The trust breaks down. If an admin does not wish to do some of the legwork in a deletion, then the administrator can easily and reasonably leave the deletion. Ignoring reasonable requests breaks that trust. It certainly leads to angst when a displayed work at a Wikisource no longer displays, and it greatly increases the effort to delete a work, all from the unwillingness of a person to take that little extra step, and display the respect for this other wiki.

When a fellow administrator requests that someone not undertake work as their actions cause problems at a wikisource, I would hope that could see their way clear to work constructively with that request. Not simply dismiss it with one word.

So I am here point to an issue. The Wikisources require that administrators deleting PDF and DJVU files used at the Wikisources be notified to these sites prior to deletion. We require time to cleanup if the file is not {{PD-1923}}; we require time to transfer the file if it is {{PD-1923}}. We require that Commons community instructs, and expects of, its administrators to have that constructive approach and that it holds administrators to that standard. If an individual administrator is unwilling to be cooperative, then simply don't touch the files. If the Commons community is not going to maintain that standard, then please say so; then the Wikisource communities can have their say, and then look to manage their images outside of Commons if they need to do so. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

According to the DR, a Wikisource admin was well aware that the file would probably be deleted, about a week before actual deletion. He could have done that notification. Please don't expect unreasonal things from your colleagues. It's very impractical to take a decision in a DR and then having to wait some time (several days?) before actually executing that decision. Srittau did nothing wrong in this DR. Commons admins have to base themselves on the procedures and rules of Commons, just that, when closing a DR. Jcb (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I’m tired off Billinghurst attacking our admins because they don’t give en.wikisource special treatment. This is utterly ridiculous and intimidating behaviour. Not acceptable for any sysop at this project. This behaviour cannot continue. Billinghurst new the file should probably be deleted and yet he didn’t make the extra effort off transferring the file or doing some clean up. But instead he asks administrators to spend their volunteer time because Billinghurst wants special treatment. Natuur12 (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no rule to notify s:en:WS:CV before deleting a used file, if the file is a copyvio it may be deleted. Of course wikisource is free to setup a bot which is reporting such DR's automatically. Regarding the deletion: Srittau action is fine. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Natuur12: should probably be deleted and will be deleted are completely different things. Compare this DR. Sometimes commons' admins decisions are totally unpredictable. Each multipage file on commons may have from few tenths to few tens of thousands(!) dependencies in a Wikisource project organized in a tree-like dependecy structure relying on the file content. So no, deleting the dependent pages when somebody decides that the file should probably be deleted and restoring them when somebody decide that no, not this time is not an option. Not all wikisource project has an admin who is also a Commons admin and is 24/7/365 ready to handle cases like this. I found your suggestion to billinghurst very unhelpful here. Ankry (talk) 09:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ankry: I believe you have misinterperted my comment. I was talking about one file in a DR that was an obvious delete. Easy to predict the outcome just as it should be easy to predict the outcome of the DR you link. (Namely a part of the admins ignores the URAA while others don't so outcome depends on which admin takes action making a kept by Jcb the most likely outcome.) I wasn't trying to make some kind of general statement. If people want to find a more sustainable solution for files used at wikisource in general count me in but I do find this admin bashing by B tasteless. Natuur12 (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Interesting responses by admins. So let me see if I have this right.

Commons admins should only be concerned with matters within Commons, and the impact of their actions on other wikis is not of relevance to their decision-making process, the actions that they take, nor the timing of any actions.
The Wikisources are unreasonably asking for due consideration with the deletion of djvu/pdf files that are hosted here. Noting that the deletion of such files usually affects tens to hundreds of pages, and magnifies the difficulty of the clean up of such pages.
It is now unreasonable to ask for an addition a linked page, or a ping, prior to an admin acting to delete. (Noting that our policy gives specific direction about the diligence expected, especially around complex and problematic files, per Commons:Deletion policy#Regular deletion and Commons:Deletion policy#Closure.)
It is now unreasonable to ask an administrator to not undertake the deletion of files that are problematic and complex when they do not wish to undertake the diligent acts required.
It is each individual wikis responsibility to build a bot to receive a notification of the nomination of the deletion of a file at Commons. [ie. individual wikis, especially Wikisources of any size, now must have development skills to write a bot, and install it to watch feeds at Commons.)
Wikis are now expected to predict the decision by a closing admin and have removed the problem prior to a decision to close.

— billinghurst sDrewth 23:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Your summing up is biased. You e.g. present as a fact that the involved DR would have been 'complex', while this was actually a very simple decision. If a file is apparently non-free (and nobody has disagreed with that statement), then there is only one possible outcome: delete. We don't need joint/proposed/whatever closures for that, we just click 'deleted' and move to next DR. And your first conclusion is true of course. Jcb (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jcb: in the policy the statement for closure is not solely about complexity of the decision, it is about complexity of clean up, so the components about the deletion, please see the example about templates. Deletion at English Wikisource of transcluded material of hundreds of pages is a complex action, and it is made extremely difficult by the deletion of the existing file. It needs the consideration of Commons admins, it simply needs time to undertake a proper cleanup. I know that I am biased in my PoV, however, that summation was the above commentary, are you disputing that the summation does not otherwise reflect the commentary? Happy to hear what are the alternatives. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Just a thought: What would happen if during such a DR, you would temporarily upload a local copy at Wikisource under the same name? (Not sure whether the software would allow this). Would the Delinker still delink the file if the local copy is remains in place? Jcb (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jcb: When there is a local copy of a file of the same name at a local wiki and at Commons, then it does not show on the global usage at Commons and there will be no action from CDL. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

So we might have a good work around here? If we notify somewhere when a file is nominated that is in use at Wikisource, somebody could upload a local copy at Wikisource, so that after eventual deletion, the Wikisource community can take its time to clean up, before eventually removing the local copy (or not clean up at all, if the file can be locally kept within policy). Maybe we could test if this would work, with some dummy file? Jcb (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand the frustration when files are deleted that are used by a Wikisource project. However, in case like the first refered to DR above, which is a blatant copyvio, there is no point in waiting for an obvious decision. This is material that could have been speedily deleted. And I wonder what the course of action could have been? Uploading this to the local Wikisource project? This is a copyvio on any project. The use of a regular deletion request was already courtesy to all involved. The second case is different as this is possibly eligible for moving to en:ws due to its early publication date. Here I wonder why it was not transfered right away when it was clear that the pma70 claim wasn't true. With all respect to the other projects we support here at Commons, we all know that we have a huge number of deletions every day, a burden which is actually shouldered by very few admins. I do not see the resources to support a delayed execution of a deletion request as we do not have an automatized process for that. The alternative would be to keep track of such pending closures by hand which is not practical.

I have following suggestions, though:

We could create a category for deletion requests that refer to cases that possibly hit a Wikisource project. It is easy to add such a category and this makes it easier to track the Wikisource cases and to transfer files earlier where necessary and possible.
If a debate is necessary at the Wikisource project whether the file can be transferred according to the local policy, open it and refer to it at the deletion request. If we know that something is actually going on, it is fairly easy to skip a deletion request out of courtesy to postpone the closure for some limited time period. We do likewise for many OTRS-related cases. Skipping is, however, unlikely to occur without such an indication that something is going to happen.
The Wikisource projects could perform a license review for all new texts. This helps to avoid wasted efforts for texts which are not yet out of copyright. And, where possible and necessary, a transfer could be initiated by the responsible Wikisource project and a deletion request filed at Commons after the transfer is completed.

And finally: Please do not associate such a problem with a named admin who is simply closing deletion requests, following established policy. I think we are quite open-minded in hearing the perspective of other projects and ready to look for solutions which work for both sides. --AFBorchert (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Three things from my side:

I apologize for being abrasive in my comments in the Deletion Request and on my talk page, but I perceived the opening comment as quite unfriendly and I don't appreciate unfriendliness. When initially closing the issue I saw your comment, so I was assuming that you were aware of the issue and would transfer the file as necessary after the closure. As an admin you have all the needed tools, after all.
I was about to make a suggestion similar to that of AFBorchert. A tracking category would work, at least as an easy measure for now. But this problem is not limited to Wikisource alone and I think a general solution would be good. What could also work is to give deleted files that need transfer a "grace period" for transfer. I.e. the DR gets closed, but added to a "staging area" (Commons:Deletion requests/suspended?) for later deletion. That would need tool support, though, to be accepted.
"Request denied" is two words.

Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment I remember Billinghurst getting on me and Fastily (and the admin corps generally) about this back in 2013, and being rude and heavy handed about it back then. How many years of no success with this shtick will it take for Billinghurst to figure out he and the other Wikisourcers are going to have to shift for themselves? Maybe he'll give it up by 2020... lNeverCry 08:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Srittau: The main problem is not in this specific case but more general: some Wikisource communities found Wikimedia Commons as totally unreliable project with non-cooperative admins that should not be used to store files for Wikisources. And your position suggests that they are right... Ankry (talk) 09:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I am confused about your comment and which position you mean. Are you implying we should not find a solution (because as you can read above I am in favor of finding one) or do you mean my position of not being friendly to rude admins of other projects, who obviously expect other people do to things they could do as well? Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Srittau: My comment about non-cooperative admins was not directed to you personally. My intention was just to point out what general opinion about Commons admins is created by such deletions regardless what the real reasons of the deletion are. The problem is that if the file is deleted, in many cases even restoring it does not restore the dependecy tree properly (buggy MediaWiki and/or its extensions). So the loss is very difficult to repair.

Of course, attempt to find a solution is a great idea. I think that delaying (eg. for 24h) of deletion of files that 1) were not recently created 2) have number of external dependencies over some limit and 3) are not deleted on direct copyright owner request might help much. Not only for Wikisources. But I am afraid that the main problem here is that most Wikisources are projects based on very small communities (1-20 users) and finding there somebody technically skilled to implement such a solution is nearly impossible. So we must rely on human actions... Ankry (talk)

I think one of the problems is that while Commons has many admins, the number of active admins is also pretty limited and we are constantly the backlog, especially concerning deletions. It is very hard to give special treatment to external projects, especially since they all have different requirements and policies. Delaying some DRs without any process in place to clearly distinguish those from undecided DRs puts quite an additional burden on admins. So some way to remove a DR from the normal DR backlog and mark it as "yep, need to delete, but not done yet for some reason" would be the most helpful. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, there are 2 contradictory positions here:

Commons is an independent project with its own rules and it shouldn't care for other projects at all
Commons is a slave project, intended for storing files for other wikis and for sharing files between them.

While there is an equilibrium between the two options above, it is OK. If one of them dominates, things go bad. IMO, that is the main problem. But it goes OT already, I think. Ankry (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment Maybe - in a fact - admins have kept the rules... but -- as a result -- something bad took place... Sister projects need special treating. And their users have many difficulties to perform their needs on Commons. I agree with Ankry, his words are totally true. Wieralee (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment In my times in this forum about this matter, I have been looking for better community-driven solutions that could help resolve the difficulties faced by the Wikisource. Maybe it is worthwhile explaining the issue again.

This was not a discussion/complaint that Commons admins are deleting works that are clearly copyright violations, that is fully understood and is the right decision, it is about how the process progresses
To allow the WSes time to cleanup, prior to deletion of utilised djvu/pdf files, needs the cooperation of local administrators
Comment
- The high workload for Commons administrators leads to quick solutions that may be obvious and somewhat simple on standard wikis. However, while deletions are overt on most wikis, where they are djvu or pdf files used at Wikisources, they are not overt, and are quite problematic. The deletions are obfuscated by the ProofreadPage usage so that the corresponding Index: pages are nullified as they rely the existence of the File:, the pages transcluded to the main namespace become blank pages again due to the relationship for proofreading. There is no means to know that this has happened, and there is no alerting work undertaken by CommonsDelinker.
- So apart from the display issue, any resultant cleanup or deletion is problematic as it may means hundreds of main, Page: and Index: namespages and resulting links for the work to cleanup. It definitely takes time when the file exists, it takes much more time, and more diligence when the file has been deleted.
To have a better notification of a nomination so that the communities are aware that a hosted file has been nominated for deletion.
Comment
- The system is currently not effective to allow communities to know that there files have been nominated.
- The longer that the file has been hosted the harder it is to know of a nomination (bot uploads in earlier days, uploader having left community, local licence changes).
- Further these are works that may have tens to hundreds hours of transcription efforts, so the ability to participate and understand the deletion is a courtesy that would be handy to extend. Compared to 'surprise!' work gone!
Some wikis do not have dual copyright provisions, and solely work on US copyright, so files that are okay on US copyright can be transferred to those wikis (and we have two templates available to mark those templates) so need to be appropriately marked, transferred (checked) prior to deletion locally.
- CommentMagnus wrote a script to push files to respective though it only works for administrators at those wikis, and other tools that pushed files to locally wikis are no longer maintained.q

I understand that a Commons deletion is a problem across all wikis, and I would love to see us do more in that regard. I also personally see the complex issue at Wikisources, and the amount of administrative work that occurs due to that single quick click at this end. Most of which could be circumvented by communication, and allowance for cleanup.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Billinghurst (talk • contribs)

It seems like a couple folks here are upset about comments that the admins on commons only care about Commons and not the other wiki's, which is partly true but functionally this is true of all the WMF wiki's. How many times has this been the case on projects like Wikidata and especially EnWP where commons or another projects request was dismissed because they were following the rules of that wiki without concern or consideration of the others. Commons is a useful project and has a lot of content that can be used across sites but it has rules and oftentimes those rules are different. One example is that the content must be freely distributable, not fair use, which is allowed on many of the other projects. So if the content is of a fair use nature, then it should be moved to the applicable wiki and not stored here. The rules are complicated enough as it is, if we had to try to accommodate and give precedence to every other projects rules over the rules of this project, commons wouldn't be able to function.

Having said that, perhaps someone can pull a report from Quarry or labs that shows the affected files so that the Wikisource folks can work that list. It shoudl be pretty easy to identify the affected files and then we can setup a project page. That will help both communities track the progress of the task and then when the item has been moved to Wikisource, it can be deleted here. If we work together to resolve the problem I suspect the outcome can benefit both groups. Reguyla (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

you should expect periodic complaining about deletions, since you do not value collaboration. the fault lies with the toxic culture here, not the complainer. 98.163.68.171 02:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Or perhaps the toxic stupidity and arrogance of IP trolls who, almost as a rule, have nothing worth a fuck to add to any discussion. lNeverCry 08:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Women's March (32540672805).jpg

Did MB298 make a slight mistake passing this Public Domain Mark image. I don't think we can keep this image since it is from an individual flickr account with no OTRS permission. This license can be revoked by the copyright owner at any time without a license change or OTRS message, I thought. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

are you attempting to circumvent DR because you do not agree with a determination ? 98.163.68.171 02:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

A deletion request isn't needed. We have a specific no permission tag for PD Mark images. I've tagged this image with {{Remove this line and insert a public domain copyright tag instead}}. We need permission from the author or we need the Flickr account holder to switch to a more definite free license like CC Zero. @MB298: If the above comment via IP is yours, you may want to ask admins to hide the revision to protect your privacy. lNeverCry 04:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not affiliated with the account above. MB298 (talk) 04:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@MB298: I see from the other edits of this IP that it's a troll, and an ignorant troll at that... lNeverCry 08:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@INeverCry: That anon IP troll might on this page trolling me on PDM images. Though you may not want to get involved. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and the new tag INeverCry. PD Mark images have a whole bunch of issues for Commons and cannot be accepted without at least an OTRS permission message by the copyright owner. A license change is best of course. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: If you use Rillke's reviewing script, this way of tagging PD-Mark images for permission or license change is the last option at the very bottom when you fail a review. lNeverCry 08:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I was told this was the only way to launch a mass DR of images. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: I certainly wouldn't waste time arguing with that jackass. It's better to leave him to the closing admin. As for DR/no permission tagging, both have a 7-day period before deletion or re-licensing, so it doesn't matter too much which you use. lNeverCry 01:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@INeverCry: Thanks for your advice. He did point out one good point...that the Upload Wizard Extension uploads PDM images without any problems like this photo In this case its the uploader's own work but if it was someone else's work, it might be a problem. I did not know about this loophole and don't know if any Admin like Josve05a or Revent can fix the UploadWizard issue. Its like leaving a barn door open. Best Regards from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Request to delete the version of a file I've just uploaded

file: File:Lawrence Alma-Tadema - An Audience at Agrippa's.jpg
version to be deleted: this one (1,072×1,526), uploaded by me an hour ago 07:52, 15 February 2017.
details: having noticed the defect in a newly uploaded file, at 07:55 I've already reverted the default image to the previous source.

I did not find the solution in the "speedy deletion" procedures, since it deals only with the entire files, and not with versions. Thanks in advance, Cherurbino (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Done --AFBorchert (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Cherurbino (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Airbeat One Felix Jaehn 2015 by Denis Apel-1208.jpg

Please remove differing version. Commons:OVERWRITE, unclear license. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Done Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Panoramio upload bot uploads files into many categories - can this be changed?

Hello,

I've asked about this before and complicated technical solutions were suggested which I can't figure out. I just wish the bot would not do this. For example File:Dallan Thal Rd 20 - panoramio.jpg is in Category:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa as well as two other categories, all with the "Check categories" template. I gave up a while ago trying to deal with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, which now has 2,004 total files (mostly of roads) needing categories. These files are also in other categories, e.g.Category:North Waziristan Agency and Category:Federally Administered Tribal Areas‎ both of which are also in Category:To be checked along with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

I know I'm not technically sophisticated but so far I have enjoyed making categories and sorting. I've made 112,823 edits; 12 percent are making categories. Please, if you could, encourage Panoramio upload bot to avoid making frustrating work for people like me who do human work.

Thanks, Kalbbes (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Inactivity run for February-March 2017

Hi everyone; as is tradition at this time of year, I have just started our bi-annual admin inactivity run for February-March 2017.

As usual, all administrators listed in the table on that page have been notified on their talk pages and via e-mail by yours truly; those listed here have had their adminship removed on Meta by steward Savh a short while ago as a result of their prolonged inactivity. Please join me in thanking @Elya and @Powerek38 for their excellent service to our community over so many years as administrators here; I hope we will see both of you active again as soon as possible. Thank you! odder (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Module talk:Authority control#Typo

This module is protected, fix a typo, please. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't change the module without spending a lot of time reading its code, so @Jarekt: --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Done --Jarekt (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Blacklist prevents me from proposing deletion

I want to nominate file File:MARIAN RICHERO Milan 2009.jpg for deletion, but I can't because the following phrase: *marian.richero.* is blacklisted. It is a personal photo uploaded by a prolific sockpuppeteer (see: W:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexia 96). Vanjagenije (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Nuked - Jcb (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

User Alin Prejbeanu requsted a wrong 180° rotation here, in order to vandalise the club's logo.Ionutzmovie (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Also his other contributions are clear examples of copyright infringement.Ionutzmovie (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I nominated his/her uploads for deletion. Taivo (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Cut-off date for {{PD-old}}

At COM:VPC we have had a discussion to try to reach a consensus about how old an image has to be before we assume PD if the PMA+70 rule applies and we don't know when the author has died. After several users stated their opinions and arguments, I have extracted a proposed compromise from the discussion, to see if we can find each other somewhere in the middle, see Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Proposed_conclusion. Not many users have responded to that proposed compromise. Of the users who responded, some find the compromise acceptable, some don't. Currently there is not yet a consensus. More input from different users would be appreciated. Jcb (talk) 12:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Photos of statues in the USA

I can't quite recall the law on this. Are photos of statues in the USA free license?, such as this one:

File:WilliamBradfordStatue.jpg HalfGig (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The relevant page is COM:FOP. Pictures of statues in the US are not free, unless the copyright on the statue itself has expired. Jcb (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your example, the statue is stated to have been erected in 1920, so that's fine. Anything published in the US before 1923 is PD. Jcb (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. So anything after 1923 would follow rules for artworks? HalfGig (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, anything from 1923 and later may be or may not be still copyrighted. E.g. works from certain years are out of copyright if they don't have a copyright notice on it, works from certain years are out of copyright if the copyright was not renewed. (Colleagues: Do we have an overview page for the complex US copyright rules?) Jcb (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jcb: Commons:Hirtle chart? Gestumblindi (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Jcb (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Vaso Dorchester.jpg

The rationale is "Scan two-dimensional work is not creative act." However, this is a copy of a photograph from Steiger, B. (1979) Worlds Before Our Own. New York, New York, Berkley Publishing Group. and reprinted in Marshall, W., M. Dvais, V. Mollman, and G. Zappler (1985) Mysteries of the Unexplained. Pleasantville, New York, Reader's Digest Association. Is it actually public domain? Doug Weller (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

It's difficult to say - from the en.wp article, the source of the photograph seems to go from one book to another, but there's no indication as to when the photograph was taken, or who the photographer is. It's certainly plausible that the image in in the public domain, but no certainty that's the case. I'd discuss with the uploader first and if they can't provide any clarity, nominate for deletion. Nick (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The object itself appears to have been found (not made) in 1852 in USA - http://anomalyinfo.com/Stories/1852-may-19-dorchester-pot, so that has to be PD. The question arises does taking a photo of a PD - 3D object gain any copyright? Ronhjones ^(Talk) 16:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

There's no evidence that the photo is of the object, although there is a claim. I don't think the image shows 6 flowers or bouquets as described in the original source, it only shows 4. There's a copy of the page in Steiger's book here that makes it clear that the photo is recent, made by someone named Michael Swanson who said he owned it. So the question is, as User:Ronhjones suggests, is the photo PD? It's clearly copied from a book that isn't PD. @Nick: the uploader hasn't edited since November and doesn't edit very frequently on any project. He also dates the photograph to before the object was discovered. Doug Weller (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Issue when Template:Invno is used inside of accession number field of Template:Artwork

Is this something for a bot?

In German Fragen zur Wikipedia (Questions regarding Wikipedia) User.Pp.paul.4 notified about an issue with {{Invno}} (the string [[Category:Artworks with known accession number|<language dependent term>]] is visible instead of the aimed category entry). I did some research, found out, that sometimes it “just” twice adds the language dependent term for the accession/inventary number, but when a link is added, like it is possible in {{Invno}}, the first described issue occurs – 2 examples: doubled term, inactive categore entry. As far as I see this happens, if {{invno}} is used in the accession field of {{Artwork}} or one of its aliasses. According to this search in the moment there are 222 uses of this kind:

all: hastemplate:artwork hastemplate:invno insource:/\| *(([Aa]ccession number)|[Ii][Dd]) *=[^}|]*[Ii]nvno/

This contains the very problematic cases with a link, there are 77 occurrences in the moment:

all: hastemplate:artwork hastemplate:invno insource:/\| *(([Aa]ccession number)|[Ii][Dd]) *=[^}|]*[Ii]nvno[^}]*link/

I think all cases with a simple {{invno|<ID>}} or {{invno|1=<ID>}} could easily be converted to contain the blank number in the accession number (code from Artwork for possible aliasses: {{{accession number|{{{Accession number|{{{id|{{{Id|{{{ID|}}} }}} }}} }}} }}}). For cases with a link I do not know a solution. Sometimes also the general usage looks wrong to me, e.g. in [[:File:Napoleon's exile to Elba3.jpg. Side remark: Until today the template description of {{Invno}} was “Multilingual tag for use in the "ID=" field of {{Artwork}}”. — Speravir – 02:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Note, that there are usages of {{Invno}} inside of other fields of {{Artwork}} without any issue, like in File:Carlo Crivelli 059.jpg. — Speravir – 03:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Move template

Please move Template:According to EXIF data to Template:According to Exif data (and doc + talk subpages) to achieve naming consistency with Commons:Exif, Category:Exif, Category:Exif maintenance, en:Exif etc. (The page is half-locked as a Widely used template.) The current name should be kept as a redirect, existing usages and links need not to be changed. --ŠJů (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

File:Sidney Moncrief 2015.jpg

Is this image from a Veterans Adminstration flickr account PD? It should be but there is no specific license for it under Commons:VIRIN. The photographer is not named. I assume it is PD though but have not marked it. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I will pass the image as mentioned in the image talkpage. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit request on full-protected file

Can an admin change the uncategorized date from year=2013 to year=2015 for File:Fa-editintro.png (I've consolidated the other 2013 images to 2015, but this one image is all that's left)? As a note, it seems strange to have a fully protected file that isn't categorized. If the file is important enough for full protection, you'd think finding a category for it wouldn't be difficult. lNeverCry 04:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I unprotected the description page. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: Thanks, I've updated it. I'm only seeing 176 of my empty cats showing up in Category:Other speedy deletions. Some server lag I guess? The hassle with this is that some of the categories still have a file here and there that was categorized into the maintenance category by hand, and so escaped my custom replace. lNeverCry 05:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@INeverCry: try using Perform batch task and appending an space to the end of the file or category. This purges the file's category. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi all,

Regarding the above deleted image, I invite you to see Commons:Deletion requests/File:RT SF9A0489-cropped-small.jpg, User_talk:Wikicology#Nikki Phoenix Picture, User_talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive15#Nikki_Phoenix, User_talk:Elcobbola#Nikki Phoenix Picture and this blog post. Uploader has been credited as the copyright holder of their photo. I don't think we should be making things difficult for new users who freely contribute their own intellectual works here. Wikicology (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems that this has been discussed in four venues now. No need to drag it into a fifth. If you think this photo should be restored, undeletion requests are over here. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

File:Wikipedia mobile en.svg

Please verify the version recently uploaded by a new user - smells like vandalism/sock attack. It may be wise to protect file. --Denniss (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Ceiling fan vandalism, revisions deleted, file protected, uploader blocked. --Didym (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Taplow drinking horns.jpg

Dear Admins Jameslwoodward, Taivo, Jcb, etc,

This image above was ARR at the flickr source today but I reluctantly passed it because I feel certain it was cc by sa 2.0 generic at upload. I gave my detailed reasons in passing it in the image talkpage If any Admin does not accept my explanation, please feel free to 1. revert my flickrpass

Secondly, if it is too risky to keep this image or if the explanation is unsatisfactory, please delete it now or file a DR. I have no feelings either away as you are the more experienced Admins. I will never endanger Commons by passing an image like this without a clear reason. As an aside, it is quite unfortunate that some images (like this) can be missed by the flickrbot for 6 full years. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI, The 3 latest images from this account that I managed to find so far are

File:Cattleya iricolor - Flickr 003.jpg reviewed August 8, 2010
File:Masdevallia caesia - Flickr 003 - detail.jpg reviewed August 9, 2010 &
File:River Witham Shield.jpg reviewed August 16, 2010 or one day after this image was uploaded.

All I know is that by June 2011, I noticed the copyright owner changed the license to all her images to ARR. That is why I asked Admin MGA73 to order his bot to tag her reviewed images with a flickr change of license tag. However, there are no longer any uploads from this flickr account to Commons after August 2010--so I assume the copyright owner changed the license to ARR of her images by September 2010. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. This is a tough one. First off, I definitely think that the license review tag now on it must be changed. It is not correct that it had a CC-BY-SA on February 21,2017. However, if I understand the comments above correctly, we have at least four images from this Flickr account, three of which have proper license review tags and the fourth is the subject. All of them are now ARR.

Of course the best thing would be to have the Flickr user to change the license, or at least to state that the subject image was originally CC-BY-SA. If the Flickr user ignores the request, I would be inclined to keep it with a short explanation as below. If she refuses to change the license and claims that it was always ARR, then we have no choice but delete it.

Or, we could let sleeping dogs lie and simply put a short explanation on it, something like:

"This image is one of four uploaded from the same Flickr account. The other three are properly license reviewed after upload and were CC-BY-SA then. All four are now ARR on Flickr. This one was not properly reviewed, but it is believed that it was also CC-BY-SA when uploaded. The other three are:

File:Cattleya iricolor - Flickr 003.jpg reviewed August 8, 2010
File:Masdevallia caesia - Flickr 003 - detail.jpg reviewed August 9, 2010 &

File:River Witham Shield.jpg reviewed August 16, 2010 or one day after this image was uploaded."

. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. I will follow the final solution in the image talkpage and let sleeping dogs lie. I'll also remove my flickrreview tag. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Can an admin somehow bypass the spam filter?

Using popups I wanted to revert File:Irene Montero 2014 (cropped).jpg to the version from 4th January 2016, but the spam filter forbade it because youtu.be is globally blacklisted on m:Spam blacklist. Is it possible for an admin to bypass it? --jdx ^Re: 11:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be possible to bypass it. I've tried editing it manually and the blacklist stops me from saving an edit, similarly, it's not possible to upload a new file with a blacklisted URL in the source fields. There are also no changes to our local blacklists or whitelists which would explain how this URL was able to be added and edited several times. I would expect there may have been a bug which has been patched or a change in how the spam-blacklist is handled which explains this behaviour. I would expect the easiest approach is to find and replace the Youtu.be link with the full YouTube.com link. User:とある白い猫 is currently compiling a list of file pages which have issues with the blacklisted URL shortener. Complaints to [9] btw, it's not a local issue. Nick (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

See also phab:T36928 which address this very question of having a user right to bypass the filter. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the ticket a few minutes after I started the topic here. Anyway, Josve05a replaced youtu.be with youtube.com. I also had this idea, but I was not sure if it is a good solution from "legal" point of view. --jdx ^Re: 13:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Rachael In the People Magazine 2015.jpg: Copyvio?

The file is declared "own work", but the filename suggests some sort of a copy. --Jkbw (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Located using tineye and marked. Bidgee (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

AWB request backlog

Can an admin or admins handle Commons:Requests for rights#AutoWikiBrowser access? There's four open requests, with one of them dated the 28th of January. It shouldn't take more than a few minutes to get these taken care of. lNeverCry 02:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I approved two users to use the AWB. I was in doubt about the other user and, so, I ask to another sysop to close the request. The fourth user had already been approved to use the app. Érico (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Done Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy closes

Could someone (other than me) have a look at Commons talk:Deletion requests#Speedy closes and take appropriate action? I think we certainly should list cases where it is okay to speedy close, since there is some confusion about it from time to time. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Voting for cut-off date for PD-old with unknown date of death of author

Hi all, to conclude the discussion about how we should deal with old files if the PMA+70 rule applies and we don't know when the author died, I have started a vote: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Voting. Please vote, so that we can come to a consensus. Jcb (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Abuse Filter's rule #173 (visible only for admins)

I am proud of it. --jdx ^Re: 14:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

(@Jdx: Please don't forget the condition limit) --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I remember about it – that's why I have reorganized the rule recently. But at moment I can't see many ways how could I optimize it even more. And the rule is "universal", i.e it covers "edit" and "upload" actions of some anonymous and registered users. Anyway, feel free to modify it if you have some ideas. --jdx ^Re: 14:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict):-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated effort. Nick (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Visa requirements for Namibian citizens.png

User:Twofortnights is constantly reverting correct (new versions) of this file. What to do? Thank you. --Chtrede (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The file is used by the following article on Wikipedia - [10]. The updated version obviously contradicts everything that stands in that article which has 202 references. Namibian citizens simply do not have "visa on arrival" to France or Germany. France and Germany are part of the Schengen Area meaning they don't have independent visa policies and there is no such thing as visa on arrival in Schengen Code. I think this is such common knowledge that painting a map to say that citizen of any country may obtain a visa on arrival to France might even constitute vandalism, it's hard to believe anyone who is involved in editing articles on visa policies and requirements to be unaware of the EU visa policy, at least in general. And then of course Namibian citizens do not require a visa for Brazil for example which in the new version is shown as visa required The map style is also different to all the other 200 files in Category:Maps showing visa requirements which use the same map. Do I need to go on?--Twofortnights (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Please read!. Where did I say they can obtain visa on arrival for Germany? The new list was send out to the media in Namibia (e.g. to me) by the Ministry of International Relations and Cooperation on 22 February 2017. Best regards from Namibia. --Chtrede (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC) P.S. I even posted the full new list in the file Summary. --Chtrede (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC) P.P.S. I am more than happy to share those official documents with you or anybody else (please give me an email address then). Thank you --Chtrede (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Listen I don't want to bite a newcomer but still I don't see much good faith from you here either given that you obviously didn't bother to read Wikipedia rules on Verifiability. Just because someone sent you something doesn't make it true. Also "the Ministry of International Relations and Cooperation" is not a primary source on visa policies across the world. It's the national governments imposing those visa policies.

So the issues we have here are the following:

The map is used with a different legend in five articles across three different language Wikipedias. And you just changed it without consulting anyone.

The same style (visa-free/visa on arrival/evisa and freedom of movement if applicable) that you ditched is used by 200 other maps. Now this file is the only one that is different for no reason.

The base map you uploaded is a different map to the 200 other maps.

Even if we say that the above is OK the map you uploaded is still full of errors - not just Brazil but also the following countries are shown as visa required on your map - Ecuador, Belize, Haiti, Panama, Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Saint Lucia, Senegal, Gambia, Singapore, Indonesia, Micronesia, Vanuatu, Samoa and Philippines while in fact they are all visa-free and it also missed the fact that Bolivia, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, Iran, Mauritania, Cape Verde, Uganda, Mozambique, Madagascar, Comoros, Seychelles, Mauritius, Maldives, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Laos, Cambodia, Timor-Leste, Palau, Tuvalu, Djibouti, Rwanda, Togo, Benin, Ghana are all visa on arrival for Namibian citizens while Venezuela, Mozambique and Rwanda are not visa-free as your map shows. The map I uploaded also has errors, namely Nauru is not visa on arrival and Benin is. I should also update it with e-visa category.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The rules are simple: If the uploader of the original file objects to newer uploads over the same file, a new filename has to be chosen for the new upload. We do not edit-war over this at Commons. And we do not decide which of two variants are to be used in the individual projects, that remains their decision. You are, however, free to post objections on the corresponding talk pages of the diagrams and to add {{Disputed diagram}} to the file description in reference to the talk page. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, AFBorchert, I was not aware of that rule in commons as I normaly just work locally in the German WP. Regards --Chtrede (talk)

Twofortnights: Go for it... (by the way, I am working in WP much longer than you, re "newcomer". --Chtrede (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Then I am surprised you didn't know about the Wikipedia:Verifiability which clearly says that Wikipedia content "is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." meaning emails you get are obviously something that may not be used as a source, let alone a source to refute perfectly valid primary sources from national governments. But anyway we may continue this conversation elsewhere if you wish.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Media needing categories as of 14 February 2014

Few files but I suspect are all copyviols--Pierpao.lo (listening) 18:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Indeed a massive copyright violation. DR created: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Unserefahne. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I have warned the uploader not to remove the DR tags from the files. Jcb (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Now this contributor changes the license from CC-* to PD-old-*, but without any proof that the license is valid. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Nuked - this pottering with licenses doesn't bring us anywhere, they have wasted enough of our time - Jcb (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Overwritten files

Could an admin check Special:ListFiles/Valdioveliu; there are 3 bad cases of overwritten files ~almost vandalism or just test uploads. It's needed to delete most recent versions of those files overwritten by him. --XXN, 16:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Done IMO test uploads. --jdx ^Re: 17:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. --XXN, 17:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --XXN, 17:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Jesse Draper.jpg

Please delete the intermediate version. Unclear license, previously published on the actress' website. GermanJoe (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Done --jdx ^Re: 17:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

PD US Government

In the diffusion of Category:PD US Government, I have noticed that files marked with {{PD-USGov-Award}} are automatically added to the parent category. Unfortunately the template is locked for admin edits only. Could someone edit the template so that the image are in a subcategory of the same name please? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I changed the protection to confirmed users only, which should be sufficient. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Jdx has now adjusted the template and I created Category:PD-USGov-Award. It may take a while though for this category to be populated by the transcluded templates. De728631 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts about "Add information" gadget being able to query metadata for information template, or a bot to run through to extract where information missing

I have seen a recent example of uploads from PLOS journals where there is metadata with licensing, source, etc., unfortunately, the bot upload was less than ideal with actual data we would expect from a manual upload. Magnus's "add information" gadget that takes data that is sitting in the main body and munges that into the information template. If we are requiring the overt addition of templates with licence what is the scope for an alternative gadget to extract and apply, or a bot to be able to run through and extract metadata and apply to our required templates. We know that the upload wizard can extract that data, and it would seem that to extend our metadata scraping would be advantageous as metadata improves, especially with PLOS journals. It would also seem that in the longer term a metadata checking/extracting bot can assist in the broader copyvio identification process. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The PLOS files are a poor example (e.g. here), because they are really missing a valid license. You somehow overlooked the fact that the CC license has no version number in both the metadata and the source website and is therefore invalid. The 'no license' tagging by @Magog the Ogre: and subsequent deletion by me was correct. Please undo your reverting of that deletion. Jcb (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I was looking to deal with the general issue of files containing metadata that is possibly useful and as a means to add to the corpus of knowledge of a file so we can evaluate. For this I was not wanting to get bogged down about specific files, or weaknesses in any particular file. For example, Magnus's gadget just allows the simple organisation of existing data into the template, it neither makes the file compliant nor non-compliant. That is the purpose of this discussion. It would be great if we/you could talk about what is possible.

To the files that you deleted, the links are to articles which have licensing statements about the articles being {{Cc-by-4.0}}, you must have missed that. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge request

Hello.Please merge page history of File:Bassem Youssef.jpg and File:Bassem Youssef, Host, A-Bernameg (2011-14) (27917538742).jpg under the first name.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done The first file is derived from the second, but it is not a "minor cropping". Therefore the files should not be merged as per COM:OVERWRITE. --jdx ^Re: 11:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

IziRodrique

Bonjour, je suis désolé par avance, je ne maîtrise pas l'anglais. Je suis tombé au hasard sur des publications de photos qui n'ont rien à faire sur Wikimedia, cela ressemble a de la publicité d'un utilisateur pour sa page Youtube et Facebook. Je pense que c'est contraire à la charte. voir la page des contributions de l'utilisateur Special:Contributions/IziRodrique ou Special:ListFiles/IziRodrique (si un francophone peut traduire, merci d'avance) merci --Thierry80 (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Bonsoir, j'appuie cette demande.

In fact, all these files are out of project scope.

--NB80 (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

La ligne à suivre est indiquée à COM:DR. La demande de suppression peut aussi être faite en français --Ruthven (msg) 17:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

~~Dans ce cas, je vais demander, sur chaque fichier, la demande de suppression, puisque cette demande semble être rejetée ici... --NB80 (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)~~

Demandes de suppressions faites par Thierry80. --NB80 (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Merci NB80 et Ruthven. ça à était fastidieux, mais j'ai suivi en essayant de pas faire de bêtise car c'est la 1ère fois que je le fait (voir là). --Thierry80 (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

CIC777

I tagged a file User:CIC777 uploaded as a copyvio of a book (it's a scan) and noticed a lot of other old notices about copyvios on their talk page. They seem to have ignored those deletions and since reuploaded them all, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CIC777. As they are all likely to be copyvios, can an admin please bulk delete and warn or block this user please? Thanks, Fences and windows (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure. Some of them seem like work of USA government. Taivo (talk) 07:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Voting for cut-off date for PD-old with unknown date of death of author

Reminder: This vote is scheduled to end tomorrow if sufficient votes are received (or if not, the vote will end as soon as there are sufficient votes). So if you did not yet vote, please feel invited to do it now. Jcb (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Banned filename?

When I try to move the generic File:Portrait of author.jpeg to File:Joan Haggerty.jpeg/File:Joan Haggerty.jpg, I get the following error:

API request failed (titleblacklist-forbidden-move): "File:Portrait of author.jpeg" cannot be moved to "File:Joan Haggerty.jpg", because the title "File:Joan Haggerty.jpg" has been banned from creation. It matches the following blacklist entry: " .*[НH]\W*[AΑΑ]\W*G\W*G\W*[EЕΕ]\W*R(?!ston).*" at Thu, 02 Mar 2017 03:07:03 GMT served by mw1221

Can I get some help with renaming this as per Commons:File renaming criterion #2? Thanks. Daphne Lantier 03:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Done --jdx ^Re: 06:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Request to delete few subpages of my own user page

Hi! Could you please delete these pages:

User:Smaug the Golden/vector.css (per "User requested deletion in own user space")
User:SMAUG/vector.css (useless redirect when page "User:Smaug the Golden/vector.css" is deleted)
User:Smaug the Golden/vector.js (using deprecated parameters & user requested deletion in own user space)
User:SMAUG/vector.js (useless redirect when page "User:SMAUG/vector.js" is deleted)

Sincerely, Smaug the Golden (talk - contributions - file list) 07:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Done --jdx ^Re: 07:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --Smaug the Golden (talk - contributions - file list) 07:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Remove autopatrol

Can an admin remove autopatrol from my account? I'm now a patroller. Thanks. Daphne Lantier 00:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Done by Jdx. Taivo (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Bonhams

Hi there, quick/small question. Would it be possible to upload this portrait?[11]. Thanks much! - LouisAragon (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you can! ;) Yann (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yann: What about the frame? It's a 3D object. IMO the photo should be cropped. --jdx ^Re: 12:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. @Yann: Any idea what lincense tag I should add? @Jdx: , I guess the Graphics lab at WP could do that? - LouisAragon (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Its mostly that I have no clue which license tag I have to choose (to upload this pic). - LouisAragon (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Use {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923}} for the license. You can crop it with the CropTool (in the left margin). Regarding the frame, see the discussion on COM:VPC#The copyright issue with 3D features in photos? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: I've just uploaded the portrait. Although cropped, it still has higher resolution than "the original". Using Hugin I stitched it from tiles available on Bonhams' page. --jdx ^Re: 18:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Use of my talk page to harass me over a block on another wiki

Hello admins,

Reguyla is using my talk page to harass me over the fact that he is blocked by Meta (by four different admins on different occasions now, I am just the unlucky current holder of the block). I don't want to need to take global action to prevent him from contributing at all anywhere, so would you please direct him to not make such comments on my talk page? I don't think he should be blocked, as he contributes positively here, but if you could maybe sysop-protect the talk page or just make it very clear that using Commons to evade his Meta block isn't acceptable?

Thanks, and apologies for invoking the inevitable fact-free tirade that will be posted below this message. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Info I've blocked Reguyla for a day only for this edit, but I can see that s/he has rich history of blockades. --jdx ^Re: 19:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. He's apparently agreed to not leave further messages on my talk page, so this should be resolved. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment Reguyla has now been indefinitely blocked by MichaelMaggs, after ceasing to desist. - Revent^talk 07:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Then he vandalized some categories and files from 73.99.93.67 and did a few acceptable edits from 73.99.94.148 and 2601:5CC:101:5DEB:AC78:FAE5:95FD:95F. --jdx ^Re: 08:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Backlog of edit requests

There is a quite big backlog of open edit requests right now, cf. Category:Commons protected edit requests and subcat. — Speravir – 00:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, there is. I was going to write about it myself.

--jdx ^Re: 00:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately that category was recently spammed with edit requests for file cleanups. Unless someone wants to actually repair all those, I think the best course of action would be to just remove those requests, so actually important requests don't get drowned. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Aside from what Sebari writes – @Jdx and Zhuyifei1999: Maybe the impression is wrong, but to me it seems you both are the only (active) admins with insight in Javascript, and a sizable part of these edit requests are related to Javascript Gadgets (do not forget the subcat). — Speravir – 19:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Can someone clean up / fix this massive amount of translation-related requests first please? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Interface translation

Hi! Please fulfil these edit requests. I'm a translator on translatewiki, translation admin here and on meta-wiki and a sysop on ukwiki, i.e. you generally don't have to check if everything is correct, just copy and paste. You may leave the edit request templates active, if you wish: I'll check the implemented translations once more and will put those templates into {{Tl}} on my own.

I've also done some gadget translations, and will do some gadget descriptions' translations, but those can wait. I just want these to be implemented asap, just to remove the relevant message groups from Special:LanguageStats.--Piramidion (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!--Piramidion (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletes

So, currently there are 226 files that are Candidates for speedy deletion. I'm pretty sure these haven't been taken care of for at least two days (since File:EMMA STONE and RYAN GOSLING Oscars - La la Land.jpg has been in there for the past two days). Someone should probably take care of these speedy deletes. Elisfkc (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me sometimes, that I'm the only who works in speedy deletion requests and if I take a break for a day, then next day there's a long-long queue. Taivo (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I handle the copyvio-cat almost every day at least once. Jcb (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Non-free content (images by Kukryniksy)

The eight March 5 uploads by Макс Царев are works by Kukryniksy. This content has been created after 1917, it is non-free (not in public domain) and should be removed (for details see here). Thank you, — Adavyd (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Done User warned, files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Renommages en cascade

Bonjour,

Pour corriger des erreurs, à la suite du renommage du fichier File:Nathan Beaulieu WJC12 press conference.jpg en File:Ryan Murray WJC12 press conference.jpg, il faudrait supprimer la redirection pour pouvoir corriger le nom du fichier File:Jonathan Huberdeau WJC12 press conference.jpg (qui représente en fait Nathan Beaulieu), puis en faire de même avec ce dernier pour renommer le fichier File:Quinton Howden WJC12 press conference.jpg (qui représente Jonathan Huberdeau).

En résumé, il faudrait faire:

Cordialement.--Bounè rodzo (talk) 10:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Estudiantes-River-Sudamericana-2014.JPG

Please delete the revision uploaded by blocked sockpuppeteer User:Sevabola and the other revisions containing the same image. It's a copyvio. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 18:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Done Yann (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Restore of user rights

Tulsi Bhagat (talk · contributions · user rights management)

Hello ! First of all, I must do apologies for my all past bad interactions and if community has no any objection, i would like to continue my good works here. So that i am humbly requesting the community members to give me back the access of tools that i previously had. Thank you for your all kind consideration. Regards, — TBhagat (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you explain us why were you (and then your sock puppet Kaulder) globally blocked? The blockade summary on Meta is somewhat mysterious. You have been unblocked, but still, you are locally blocked on Meta. That being said, I can't say anything wrong about your activity here, on Commons. But given the history, I would like to hear other admins opinions. --jdx ^Re: 13:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Some context is here. The other socks are still locked and as long Tulsi Bhagat operates with one account only at Commons, I have no objections as Tulsi Bhagat was not blocked here. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I've boldly created the accounts (Kaulder) in order to not use my main account, without people knowing it was me. Since, i want to fresh start, moreover some users personal attacking on me. Meanwhile, I were busy in my exams and someone logged into my main account and done unacceptable behaviors around wikis. I came to know my account has been globally locked for that. And then I've mailed all the matters to stewards and told them to locked my sock puppets. Now, I've finally decided, I'm going to continue my contributions with my main account. In future, I swear; I will not use any other account nor i will create a new one. Moreover, I have also enabled two-factor authentication on my main account. Regards, — TBhagat (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Tulsi Bhagat needs to demonstrate a track record of establishing basic trust before I will support them being permitted to use more advanced editing tools and elevated user permissions. I'm firmly of the opinion that Tulsi Bhagat was hat collecting too, so I don't even know if they were really that capable of using their old user-rights properly in any case. I'd wait three months and a good few hundred edits before allowing them any new user permissions or tool access. Nick (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. First he will have to regain some basic trust. Natuur12 (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

While based on my previous interactions with this user (he tried to blatantly canvass me into supporting his OTRS application) as well as his behaviour on Commons I feel handing the entirety of Tulsi Bhagat's previous user rights back to him would be absolutely unjustified, he doesn't appear to be engaging in any obvious grave wrongdoing a patroller would spot, thus he could probably be made an autopatroller again. FDMS 4 16:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@FDMS4: Hi, There at ne.wiki we have alike a policy that candidate can message other users to support his/her proposal. So that thinking about that policy i have messaged you on IRC to support me at my OTRS application; I were wrong thinking that and the time i don't know about canvassing policy. — TBhagat (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Is here any canvassing policy exists? I have not found. Please give me link. In my opinion, English wiki policies are not allowed here at commons. Commons have their own policies. — TBhagat (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome to inform a wide group of users about a particular discussion, and with Commons, we regularly ask editors and/or administrators to help with discussions where their expertise and experience may be useful, local knowledge of copyright law for example, geographical or scientific knowledge needed to categorise files etc. What we do not expect under any circumstances is users to canvass in order to benefit personally, whether that's to pass RfA, become a ne.wiki checkuser, win in a dispute about content and categorisation, to become an OTRS helper, to 'win' deletion discussions, or to 'win' disputes against another user. We've managed for more than a decade without having to write a specific 'Don't canvass' policy because until you came along and made that absurd statement claiming canvassing is OK, we all knew roughly where the boundaries of impropriety were and generally stuck to the right side of them. Nick (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nick: I were wrong. I acknowledge that thing. I've realized all that. Regards, — TBhagat (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment I am fine with restoring rights to Tulsi Bhagat, may be in several stages. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — TBhagat (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 62

Want a copy of a deleted file

Inquire about undeletion

Okinawa locator maps problem

Auto-protected edit request

Malformed deletion request

I'd nominate this for deletion, but it's apparently protected

Need reason for file deletion

Identifiable intoxicated person

Vandalism fix

Flickrwashing account?

Can't Delete

Influx of files with embedded data (CSD#F9) – continuation 2

Non-free revisions in File:Classical music composers montage.JPG

SVG with raster graphics

Remove

Requesting a GeoNotice for a local event in San Francisco

Removal of Tulsi Bhagat user rights

Possible advertising

Need a WatchlistNotice edit request fulfilled ASAP

Delete version

Data not compatible with CC0 license

Was ist denn hier schief gegangen?

Figure suggestion

Long-overdue close

Non-free revisions in File:Golden Hollywood.png

File:Jesse Klaver.jpg - version without permission

Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:History of Czechia

Belarus categories renaming

Copyright Violations

Orders, symbols of honor and medals

Photos uploaded by User:Mononykus

Three day block of User:Alchemist-hp for edit warring

Username

Whitehouse pictures

borrar categoría en Commons

Messed-up CFD

Review needed

Can photo metadata be deleted?

Dolls

Good faith treated as it would be vandalism

Should every anonymous vandal be warned?

Running an unauthorized bot

File:Fenelon1.jpg & File:Fenelon2.jpg & File:Fenelon3.jpg

Error en Template:Other

野坂 和之進 (talk · contribs)

File:Telif inceleme.png

Category:Drawings by Vorona Aleksander looks to requiring OTRS

The map File:Apostasy laws in 2013.SVG is erroneous and urgently must be corrected.

What template is used for a screenshot of a program or website authored by someone else?

Info of permission error message

Dealing with people who nominate for deletion without a reason

Inconsistent lengths of block period

weird set of oggs

Telenor Wikipedia Zero issue

Delete logo

Uploading book covers that I scanned and posted that are in the public domain

Citar página

Possible user issue

File to be replaced manually

Is it possible to delete intermediate edits of a file

Threshold for originality?

Multiple obviously copyrighted company logos

Revision delete

Possibly inappropriate block

This Mass DR

Files uploaded by GifTagger: Actual uploaders are not properly notified for deletions

Commons talk:Questionable Flickr images again

File:Jim Justice speaks at inauguration.jpg & File:Governor Justice Watches the Presidential Inauguration.jpg

COM:CENSOR

Imgur filenames

Discussion concerning Commons

Overly vague filenames

bollywoodhungama.com and OTRS ticket 2008030310010794

Cut-off date for {{PD-old}}

Request to delete subpage of my own user page

Inappropriate conduct

Issue with an administrator not being cooperative with sister wikis

Request to delete the version of a file I've just uploaded

Panoramio upload bot uploads files into many categories - can this be changed?

野坂和之進 (talk · contribs)