Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 54

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

File:Pius XII.jpg

Plaese check File:Pius XII.jpg. Hardly "Own work"? (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:PiusXII12.jpg). --RicHard-59 (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Historian1990. Thank you for your suggestion! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

flickr photographers categories

Categories of flickr photographers are among the main category tree, commons photographers categories may not be. Is that correct? Where is the equality? --Jean11 (talk) 10:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jean11: Category:Photographers on Wikimedia Commons is at the same level in Category:Photographers by web site --Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Christian Ferrer, thank you. --Jean11 (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

newer version of photograph without watermark showing same watermark of mine which was in previous version of same photo

File:Opium poppy seed and flower at Budhha lodge of Chaurikharka,Nepal.jpg I hv mistakenly uploaded a photo with my watermark. When I got notice for deletion I relaise the mistake and today I uploaded a newer version of same photo without watermark of mine but after upload its showing same watermark . what to do? pls help me. Regards. Sumita Roy Dutta (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

When I look at the file you uploaded I do not see a watermark. I think your browser is showing you a cached copy of the image. Try refreshing your browser's cache. —RP88 (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sumita Roy Dutta: It's a cache issue for sure, the watermark is gone. I also closed the deletion request. Thank you for your understanding. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Karan A Chanana, Chairman of the Amira Group, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.png

Can an experienced Admin consider marking and passing or failing this image please? The image comes from an account with only one image but I don't know if it is own work or not. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

A mail permission from http://curzonpr.com/#contact-us-agency is preferred? Jee 05:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
At the very least File:Karan A Chanana, Chairman of the Amira Group, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.png does not have the correct Commons license tag. The file is currently using the Fickr "The Commons" tag (i.e. {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}}) but the photo on Flickr is not a member of Flickr's The Commons. it doesn't show up when The Commons is searched and it's licensing doesn't link to The Commons license like all of the other The Commons members. Files from Flickr using the PD mark use {{Flickr-public domain mark}} which requires the uploader to select the appropriate Commons public domain license template. Normally the FlickreviewR 2 bot would have added {{Flickr-public domain mark/subst}} (I don't know why this did not occur with this file). I've done the subst the bot would normally have done. See Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images for background details. —RP88 (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Other views?

Maybe others could take a look at these contibs. The aim of the uploader would appear to have been to hijack the en wp article making it about the business rather than the myth which was the original theme of the article. However I'm not sure about the contributions although they seem to be intended to promote a business. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

While I’m not an administrator, my view is that these should be, if anything, subjected to a regular deletion request. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes I think they (mostly) are probably within scope however given the motivation I felt other views would be useful. --Herby talk thyme 17:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Why other views from the administrators’ noticeboard instead of the Village Pump, along with a regular deletion request? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Exellent points to be raised in a regular deletion request. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Undo more than one edit by the same contributor?

Hi, probably a dumb question, but I have to ask anyway: In the page history of articles at DE-Wikipedia I get two kinds of "undo" options. One is for undoing just one edit, a second one is to revert all recent edits of this contributor on the page. At Commons, there is just the simple undo option for one edit. If I´d like to revert the last two edits of User:Cheick Cherif Mouhyiddine at Category:Public domain, how do I do that? --Rudolph Buch (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done I added the rollback bit to Rudolph's account. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Bull-Doser

Bull-Doser is a Canadian user, a young man with certain problems communicating. Not a talker. He uploads really crummy automobile photos he takes in Quebec, as well as from the occasional vacation (usually Mexico or the Dominican Republic). He has followed this pattern for nearly ten years now, and has been blocked from wp:en for various problem habits (uploading crap pictures, writing a bunch of OR content on Quebequoise [sp?] shopping centers and radio stations). I have myself nominated many tens, if not hundreds, of his pictures for deletion for being of abominable quality.

After recently uploading a picture with the incorrect copyright, however, some other editor decided that this meant that all BD's photos were copyvios. An admin blocked BD and I now find myself in the peculiar situation of defending a user who has annoyed me a great deal over the years - but I cannot stand by and a) see someone blocked with very little cause and b) to lose the occasional picture they have taken that is of value. As a note, in nearly ten active years, no one has ever brought forward a copyright concern until his recent upload of a picture of a singer. An admin blocked BD based on that one upload, and the fact that BD uses a number of old, garbage cell phones that he (according to his talk page) gets out of recycling bins at local stores. I see no reason to disbelieve this tale, as it matches his activity perfectly. Hedwig in Washington, Didym, and OSX are other involved editors. Would love some new eyes on this. Thanks, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 01:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

 Comment Nobody said all copyvios, period. It's not the point to remove the user and all of his uploads. It is the first time today, that i hear about recycled cell phones. I actually have some stomach believing that anyone is taking (stealing?) used cell phones out of a recycling bin. But let's not go there. The thing is do we, better does the majority of us, believe this tale? I'd like to point towards: COM:AGF, COM:PCP, Com:EVIDENCE, the blocks on enwiki. Further: Until now (after blocking) the user rarely communicated with us about the problems caused. What do you guys want us to do? Just ignore it so one user can have his/her own little piece of Commons where no rules apply? @OSX, Mr.choppers, and Bull-Doser: Please don't take any of this personal. It just looks a lot like copyright violations. This has to be addressed with the uploader. And after the block the communication started. Good outcome so far, not perfect, but at least much better than files getting deleted on weak reasonings. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I have maybe misread, but it seemed that the nominated files (nominated by Didym, not Hedwig) were chosen so as to invalidate all of BD's uploads. I don't want to speak too much about BD as a person, but I don't think he is quite able to grasp what makes a good photo. However, he occasionally uploads a very useful photo such as this one, and so I feel that the Commons would lose out if he wasn't allowed to upload at all. Thanks, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 02:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I too see the blocking as a way over-the-top reaction to what could have been an innocent mistake. As I have mentioned elsewhere, there is doubt about the upload of ONE file transferred from Flickr: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Baptiste W. Hamon dans le 12h20 de la Gare Montparnasse.jpg. No one knows for sure as to whether the file was licenced as Creative Commons at the time of upload and was changed soon after or not. This can happen and considering there is only one dubious file out of many thousands he has uploaded, I would tend to give Bull-Doser the benefit of the doubt. This minor issue over a Flickr file has escalated into suspicions about many thousands of so called "PD-self" files he has uploaded because he uses a number of different cameras.

Regarding his communication (or lack thereof), Bull-Doser has Asperger syndrome (something he has disclosed at en.wiki) and prima facie, not a mild case either. I think we should look after our vulnerable members and not assume bad faith. He brings more good than bad to the project. I am sure it is not easy to deal with such communication matters when dealing with Aspergers which is no fault of his own. The lack of communication is more of a problem at en.wiki where it was solved by a block. But here at Wiki Commons, all he really does is upload his files of cars (anything else is minor in comparison). I'm not quite sure how much communication he is obligated to engage in when he simply keeps to himself (i.e. he is not editing the files by other users).

As for the stealing of cell phones from store recycling bins, nothing of the such has been stated. His exact words were: "I have collected several smartphones/digital cameras thru recycling while planning to fix". There is no admission of theft here, and even if they were "stolen" from a recycling bin, it is surely not grounds for a block. Wikimedia is not an outpost of the Quebec Police. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

(update) Okay, it seems Bull-Doser has now stated that he "usually find[s] free used smartphones/digital cameras from the recycle boxes found inside Rona, Staples, Best Buy & Target locations". This message was not yet posted when I began typing the response above. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

Foot in mouth disease: I shouldn't have asked if or if not those phones are stolen. Yes, you are totally right about us having to take care of vulnerable members of Commons. I didn't know about this, maybe someone could have sent me an email. NAh, can't expect that, given the way the whole thing went. Well, hindsight again. Let me chew on this for a minute. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for being understanding. It can be hard to "fix" a problem when you are an outsider. Mr.choppers and I have worked closely with Bull-Doser due us all being members of WIkiproject Automobiles for 8, 9, and 10 years, respectively. We both know how he works very well. He is hard to deal with and I know it can be frustrating. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh man, I just sent Hedwig a mail to that effect a little while ago (22:33 my time, sorry I didn't do it sooner!) - wasn't sure if I ought mention the A.S. here, no matter BD's previous openness in the matter. And I certainly don't want to complain about your (Hedwig's) behavior any more at all: any person who is willing to reconsider their previous actions after some brief conversations is a great admin and a decent human being in my book. In my experience 90% of humanity would simply get defensive and rigid, can't say I would do as well in the same situation. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 03:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Corrupted or infected files

A local copy of File:Rembrandt_Harmensz._van_Rijn_-_Nachtwacht_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg image have been reported has containing the following vulnerability : http://www.iss.net/security_center/reference/vuln/JPEG_Oversized_DC_Table.htm . Please check if the online one is also compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teenage (talk • contribs)

Probably not. On a file of this size, you will find some bits which look like something else. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Nssreddy.icar

Most likely none of their uploads are free. Fry1989 eh? 02:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yup, delete it all. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 03:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Looks suspect. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done All deleted, user warned. Taivo (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Don_Tate.JPG and File:Loren Long.JPG - hide unfree revisions?

File:Don_Tate.JPG and File:Loren Long.JPG have had new revisions uploaded in order to avoid copyright issues with book covers that were previously depicted in the images, among other reasons. Please consider hiding the previous unfree revisions. Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 11:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

User talk:WikipediaismadebypeoplelikeM78E

This user has uploaded two images I have identified as copyvios and a third which is highly suspect. This is despite a warning both on their Commons and Enwiki talk pages. I request that the images be speedily deleted and the user either blocked or given a final warning. BethNaught (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Previously blocked at en:wp for copyvios. I'm going to block, but I want to hear back from en:User:Risker — the username is quite similar to Wikipediaismadebypeoplelikeus, which was one of hundreds of accounts blocked at en:wp in a newly-discovered and massive sockpuppetry case in the last few days. Risker was one of the leaders (the only one?) in rooting out and handling the case, so I've asked his opinion on whether checkuser data (or anything else) would indicate similarity. Nyttend (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the response and the proactivity. BethNaught (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
No response yet from Risker, and it's not a huge deal, so I just went ahead and blocked on copyvio-only grounds. I also deleted the third image. Nyttend (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Overload of slideshow information

please see Template talk:Wiki Loves Monuments 2015. I need judgement and admin assistance (as the template is fully protected). --Herzi Pinki (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Filename-prefix-blacklist considered harmful?

Hi!

As mentioned at Commons:File naming#See also and Commons:Guide to adminship#Special MW pages, we have multiple sources for rules prohibiting file names. Having forgotten about MediaWiki:Filename-prefix-blacklist, I kept scratching my head over reports from multiple people (e.g. Commons:Upload help#Upload funktioniert nicht "Bitte aussagekräftigeren Namen angeben", Commons:Upload Wizard blacklist issues#My upload title, "Fotoarchiv RMU - Kampus 1.jpg" was prohibited. and Commons:Help desk/Archive/2015/02#Unable to start file names with Scania) having trouble uploading filenames starting with strings like "Scan" or "Foto" (e.g. File:Scania BVG Nr 4452.jpg) but which shouldn't be caught by the File:(Untitled|No[-_]?name|Unbenannt|Picture|Pict?|Image[mn]?|Img|Immagine|Photo|Foto|Bild|Scan|Panorama|Sin_título|Capture)\P{L}*\.\w <reupload|errmsg=titleblacklist-custom-filename> rule in MediaWiki:Titleblacklist because they also contain spaces/underscores before the file ending (\.\w ), and spaces/underscores are not letters (\P{L}*). Then I realised that it's probably not that filter, but the much more naïve ones in MediaWiki:Filename-prefix-blacklist that are causing this.

Am I missing something, or is there actually a good reason to have both of these, and to have such simplistic filters in MediaWiki:Filename-prefix-blacklist? —LX (talk, contribs) 18:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

There's an endemic problem that whoever writes the regexes for blacklists is no damn good at it. Someone recently took out the word "guru" in ELs at en:WP because they didn't check that it was only when it was a TLD at the end of a domain name.
"'Scan' followed by non-alpha character" should not be beyond the wit of a competent editor, which would of course allow "Scania". Andy Dingley (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Occupation template

I don't know if there's an established process for doing this, but could someone add "ichthyologist" to the English version of the Occupation template? I'm creating a lot of Creator templates for ichthyologists right now and they're showing up in Category:Pages using Occupation template with incorrect parameters. BMacZero (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

(see also the talk page) BMacZero (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done Pleclown (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Remove a file, please

I've downloaded the not-needed (and not-mine) file. Please, remove it smb.! --Tamtam90 (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done by Taivo. Yann (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi, I am not sure what to do with 67.14.236.50 (talk · contribs). I would applicate if someone else can look into this. He has just disruptive edits here on commons (but is active on enwiki). He has been blocked by hedwig and then i declined his unblock request. He contacted otrs. I decided to AGF unblock him after a talk on enwiki 1. But now he is disruptive again (see his talkpage). I am not sure what to do (reblock?). Can someone please help? Thanks so much. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

What disruptive edits are you on about? I see one edit to a userpage, three to AN/B, and then Hedwig in Washington blocked them. There are no deleted contributions, so nothing's hidden. I see no cause for an initial block at all. In fact at no point do I see any behaviour warranting even a warning! Perhaps there's some checkuser context I'm missing here, but I just see several admins biting a newbie. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
FYI: Not a newbie, just trying to look like one. [1]. The whole thing is a bunch of bollocks, if I may say so. If not, pardon my French. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 It looks like a duck to me [2]. Same file category, same drama. This has nothing to do with anything but bruised ego. Playing games and wasting other users time is fun for some people obviously. Send an OTRS ticket as well via a free email account. I suspect a fake name has been used, but this is not proven, just my very humble opinion. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Definitely per Hedwig - no newbie, simply someone who would like to look like one - it happens quite often and has done for a loooong time. --Herby talk thyme 14:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Category deletions

Would an admin please be so kind to delete a bunch of empty subcategories of Category:Users by language listed here. Didn't like to write 40 similar speedies. Thank you. --Achim (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Got them all. Achim, let me know if I need a different rationale for Category:User AF; I didn't quite understand the point of your comments about it, so maybe I made a mistake. Nyttend (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done by Nyttend, it's alright, thanks a lot. --Achim (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of non-free images from file histories

Hi. I've uploaded new versions of "File:Female getai performer being introduced by hosts, Singapore - 20141005.jpg" and "File:Female getai performer, Singapore - 20150717.jpg" as the original photographs had non-free derivative images in them which I've blurred out. Could an administrator please delete the non-free originals from the file histories? Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Taivo (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

New campaign

Hi, I'm Superzerocool from Wikimedia Chile. We are organizating a new contest, based on Wiki Tour, between 15-sep to 31-oct and we need setup a new Campaing (or reuse the previous) to use the UploadWizard. The code to setup the campaign is here (it's the same from the previous contest, but with new templates). The shortcode would be "wt-cl2105". Thanks in advance. Superzerocool (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC) (PS: if this is not the place to make this request, please, tell me :))

Please ignore it: Thanks! Superzerocool (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Bhupinder Singh Thnd

Uploads are all self-promotional. Fry1989 eh? 20:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Anybody? Fry1989 eh? 16:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to DR them. They do not qualify for speedy, IMO. Ankry (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yet another newbie question

What am I supposed to do with the images in Category:Pending fair use deletes? Having read the description, I'm guessing that these images can be deleted because the bot's finished its work, but I'm not at all sure. Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

No. These files should be uploaded into local projects, if these projects support fair use uploads. For example, en.wiki supports that. Most files in the category are used in en.wiki, so some work must be done with these files. Taivo (talk) 06:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

please delete wrrong versions from history

File:Simo hayha second lieutenant 1940.png, those color versions can be deleted.--Motopark (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Also from this File:Suomen Puolustusvoimien tornileijona.svg, please leave original versio only--Motopark (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Also from this picture File:Paavo Nurmi sytyttää olympiatulen 1952.jpg--Motopark (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Can you provide a valid deletion reason for your request, please? Ankry (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I deleted some versions of some files. Without explanation I do not delete more versions. Taivo (talk) 06:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Version history clean up for highly visible image

I request File History clean up for File:Coat_of_arms_of_Morocco.svg, there are simply too many versions. --AymanFlad (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@AymanFlad: why do you think it is a problem? Ankry (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) ✓ Done
@Ankry: There were ~100 revisions. Alan (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
@Alan: Is there any problem with 100 or maybe even 500 revisions in Mediawiki? My doubts arise from the fact that removing revisions that are not vandalisms we remove information about users' contribution. And such information should be available because of the license. Ankry (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete not needed photos and Version history clean up for highly visible image

Remove three my files:
File:Abortion.sign.png
File:Aborto.no.png
File:Аборт-знак.png
The reason: I uploaded the new files in the format *svg.
Here they are:
File:Абортов_нет.svg
File:Aborto-no.svg
File:Abortion-sign.svg
Additional request.
Clean up version history for highly visible image. I mean pictures in the format *svg.

With respect. --Донор (talk) 12 September 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Taivo (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Version history clean up for highly visible image

I request File History clean up for:
File:Узор из лунок на крыше составного дольмена горы Нексис.jpg, there are simply too many versions.

With respect. --Донор (talk) 12 September 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done But this is not highly visible image, because it is used only twice. Taivo (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

DR Thumbnail

Please delete page Thumbnail and consider tagging it non-creatable as it is mostly created by new users and was deleted already 5 times by now. --Achim (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Deleted by Herbythyme and also soft-protected by me. Alan (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Drybox techno db 380.JPG, File:IPod video 30 GB white.jpg, and File:IPod video 30 GB white 2.jpg - hide unfree revisions?

The following images have had new revisions uploaded to avoid issues with copyrighted or likely copyrighted packaging that was previously depicted. As such, it may be useful for any unfree revisions to be hidden. Thanks.

--Gazebo (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done per COM:DW and COM:DM --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Help to move file to en:WP

File:George Robey in football kit.jpg The file was published in 1904 by a UK magazine and it appears it should be at en:WP with a PD-1923-abroad tag. Can someone move the file there and I'll then add the proper license? Thanks, We hope (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Or if you can tell me about a tool I could use to do that, I'll be glad to move it. We hope (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I've gotten a copy of it to en:WP. It was uploaded here in error. Please delete the Commons file. Thanks, We hope (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Resolved. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! We hope (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

YaCBot

Hi, could someone confirm if the significantly large changes of creating and adding user categories has a verifiable community consensus? I would like to review the background and lost track of the outcome of previous long running discussion.

At the current time YaCBot (operated by @McZusatz: ) is creating duplicate user categories for my uploads, meaning that the same images are being categorized in both a (new) parent and (existing) child category. This may have already created similar problems for a very large number of Commons files. I have asked the bot operator to halt the task at User_talk:McZusatz#YaCBot_user_categorization. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a difflink, pelase? :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/YaCBot ("Bot: Transforming misleading information into category"), latest to my uploads at the time of writing is diff. The change creates a pointless duplicate category and interferes with my user category breakdown as a mass uploader. --Fæ (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks like this was approved here. Maybe there should be a opt-out. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Please consider this a strong objection to YaCBot creating duplicate categories that disrupt Commons. I request that the bot is blocked until unwanted changes are reverted as the operator does not appear to be about. The example "opt out" of diff is not an opt out, it relied on Tm reverting YaCBot's ongoing job themselves after the changes were made.
This task was badly formulated, inadequately tested and has already been subject to controversial discussions. The improvement is arguable and marginal when other solutions were not tested. Automated mass category creation is especially disruptive for planned batch uploads when not properly agreed as a change.
@Krd: any comment as the approving bureaucrat, particularly with regard to the comment "I won't force them to opt-in" when this is precisely the outcome? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
It is obvious that the task is not uncontroversial, but it has been discussed adequately and reasonable care has been taken in preparation. If there are new arguments to be considered or the procedure can be improved, this should be discussed with the operator. I'm not sure if blocking the bot is the best solution at the moment, but I'm open to opinions. --Krd 11:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
After running for several days, the bot is at "A". I can set Faebot to start reverting all YaCBot's changes to my uploads, which may easily be thousands by the time the job completes, however it would be a courtesy if the bot operator committed to doing this housekeeping resulting from their actions and added exceptions so that further unnecessary changes are not made to my uploads. Equally, this does not resolve the issue that users affected have not opted in, neither can they opt out or ask for YaCBot to revert the changes. This arose during the bot approval, but there was no testing of a process, nor was it suggested that best practice for any controversial changes ought to apply a default of expecting opt-in rather than users somehow noticing a bot approval discussion and be obliged to ask to opt-out. --Fæ (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I assume the bot is intentionally running slowly on this task, so I suggest to give the operator (@McZusatz: ) some hours to notice this discussion and act appropriately.--Krd 12:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The "uploaded by user xxx" info has to be removed as it led to attribution problems in the past. If you don't want the user cat or if you want a different user cat just tell the operator. Reinstalling this misleading info is a No Go. --Denniss (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not want duplicate categories that mess up existing reports and planned categorizations—as described in the first paragraph of this thread. All of my uploads are already in perfectly correct user categories.
If the bot operator is not interested in repairing these problems, then I can set Faebot to revert the changes this weekend, and someone can eventually rewrite the housekeeping task, if the community considers it valuable to avoid what seems hypothetical confusion for reusers. None of these changes is essential (out of my own many thousands of uploads with this type of layout, I have never heard of them causing a practical problem or verifiable error), nor are the changes needed with any urgency, so there is no reason why affected uploaders have not been directly informed about these bot changes, and given the opportunity to opt-in for these automatic, unreviewed and unrequested user categories. --Fæ (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to stop the bot now, as there appear things like Special:Diff/169309478 which seem to need some improvement. McZusatz is free to unblock the bot as soon as the affected job has been stopped. --Krd 13:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

First a copy of the reply I gave on my talk page: If you don't like the name of the category, please suggest a better name. The category represented by the new name may or may not exist. Also the new name may or may not be an empty String. --McZusatz (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

To continue, it is unclear to me what I should do to get this task done. There were numerous improvements posted on my talk page which I applied to the bot. IIrc there was consensus for how the bot does the task as of now... It gets ridiculous but if people insist, I am happy to do another survey and start/stop the bot accordingly.

Just to summarize what the bot does right now:

  • The bot is removing the misleading information about the uploader from the source/author fields. This task already got slightly more than 50% support but some raised their concern about losing "valuable" information.
  • To keep the information, the bot transforms the information into a category. The name of the category is automatically generated to make it easier for (other) bots to read. Nonetheless, it is still possible to request the bot to use an already existing category. (Please use my talk page to let me know about such category, I can't smell such!) Moreover, if someone does not want his name associated with flickr uploads from random authors, this person can opt out (by contacting me on my talk page).
  • On category creation, every user should get an alert and future versions of the bot will point them to my talk page if they are not happy with the name of the category.

If there is still confusion/disapproval of what the bot does, please let me know. Also, I am open to improve the bot further if anyone comes up with ideas. --McZusatz (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fæ: Could you please explain how adding a category to images breaks stuff? (If you don't like Category:Uploaded by user Fæ, you are free to choose the name of the category, just let me know. If you like no category at all, the bot can just skip the step of adding one.) --McZusatz (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
As explained above, I already have a hierarchy of user upload categories and for the images that these changes were run against there already was a user category on every image. This means no, I never agreed these changes and I never asked for these changes.
I have explained above how this category breaks reporting, the onus is on the bot operator convincingly to address consensus for controversial changes not the users affected, and creating user categories in a non-standardized format for users who never agreed to them will remain controversial. This should be an opt-in process rather than an opt-out process, for example a user might be on a six month wiki-break, so expecting them to actively complain in real-time rather than asking them to opt-in when they are available is unrealistic.
Keep in mind, we are not talking about a problem that breaks Commons, or something that is considered an urgent fix that must be done this month. The original issue under discussion was entirely hypothetical. Were this to take a year or two years to do the housekeeping, nobody would be worried and nobody would be harmed. --Fæ (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Aside from the aforementioned confusion this provides for attribution (for example, when reusing File:Mail Pouch reproduction in Fultonham.jpg, you attribute Don O'Brien, but this bot would make it look like you attribute me, because I'm the uploader), this bot is producing a massive array of duplications; for example, there's no good reason to create Category:Uploaded by user Russavia when Category:Files uploaded by Russavia already exists — not to mention putting File:Actividad en Plaza de Mayo y Catedral Metropolitana (8570152549).jpg into the former category when the latter category already exists. And it's going to produce a ton of COM:OVERCAT violations; if it operates to completion, all of the nearly 4000 images in Category:Files uploaded by Russavia (ntm-a cstc-a) will also go into Category:Uploaded by user Russavia, even though they're already in a child of the "Files uploaded by Russavia". This kind of category should only be applied to uploads of self-created images by people who don't already have any user categories; I suppose the bot could decide whether the uploader had a user category, but how would it know whether it's an own work or not? Lots of people don't use {{Own}}, and I don't know how else it would work. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Better get back to the original version, simply removing the misleading "uploaded by". Cat was just added because Fae was whining. You can't please them all. If that useless info leads to copyright issues it should be removed without questions as these issue are to be valued higher then complaints from user who have just uploaded images from an external source. If certain users want to track their uploads with other methods they are free to suggest a way to do this for them. --Denniss (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
1 Exactly my thoughts. I could just send out a mass message to affected users and give them 30 days to suggest a category. No response means I will execute the task like it was in the original version. --McZusatz (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
@Denniss: I don't recall that user categories were added at my suggestion, or for that matter because I was "whining". Perhaps this is some sort of joke I'm misunderstanding. Could you provide a link please? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

My two cents:

    • The "uploaded by user xxx" info, when added in the field "|author", is bad curation and prone to cause resentment among actual authors and confusion among re-users;
    • the "uploaded by user xxx" info, when added in the field "|source" is good curation, as it does indicate the user responsible for the choice of adding each file to Commons — which may be lacking in the file history (due to later removal of the 1st version of the file over copyright or other concerns; due to it having been uploaded automaticly indicating the human uploader neither in the "User" nor in the "Comment" fields; or due to having been automaticly transferred from other project, ditto). Adding this information as text under "|source" instead of having a category for it is in my opinion a good (non-)use of the category system (except when such categories are properly used and mantained, as in Fæ’s case).
  2. If indeed YaCBot should transform the "uploaded by user xxx" info into a category (even when it is i.m.o. properly entered in the field "|source"), then it should not incurr in COM:OVERCAT and not do so when the file page already has at least one such category (should be simple to have the bot parse categories for the string "user", maybe too “expensive”?)

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Soda~huwiki

Another exhibitionist with low-quality images. Fry1989 eh? 17:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

If anyone wants to undelete an odd one of these because they think it is of value to the project - fine. For me these are small sized files and very repetitive (I think there are a fair few dupe in amongst them). Otherwise - gone --Herby talk thyme 18:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for improperly renamed file be undone

File:Flags of New Caledonia.svg was recently renamed to File:Pre-IndependenceFlags of New Caledonia.svg without any discussion. The rational for the move was #3, "To correct obvious errors in file names". However, there was never any evidence presented to explain why this name was an "error". Nevertheless, an admin moved it with the edit summary "Um offensichtliche Fehler im Dateinamen zu korrigieren, beispielsweise Rechtscheibfehler" though again there was no indication of what exactly the "error" was. (Note that this rename was performed while there was an active discussion on whether it should be renamed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of New Caledonia.svg). A number of editors expressed disapproval of the rename at the deletion discussion. Following the end of the deletion discussion, there was clearly no consensus for the rename so I requested that it be undone, but the same admin who performed the original move has reverted saying that their undiscussed move which contravened policy can't be undone without a discussion first.

The former name was appropriate because both of these flags are officially used as flags of New Caledonia. The current name is inappropriate. Naming it "Pre-IndependenceFlags of New Caledonia" is like naming File:Flag of Texas.svg File:Pre-Independence Flag of Texas.svg. Both could well become independent in the future, at which point they could adopt new flags, but the names imply that they will become independent.

I'm requesting that the contentions rename be undone. I agree discussion is required to change the name, but that's precisely why I've requested that the contentious rename be undone: so that it can be discussed first. TDL (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I moved back this file. There is indeed no reason to be with that name. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks User:Yann. TDL (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Abuse of deletion request

I feel the deletion request process is being abused regarding myself, which led me to insult a person behind a previous deletion, which led to my user-ID being blocked, along with all my images being listed for deletion.

My images for deletion can be found here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Ps2045

I look forward to your comment. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.254.219.50 (talk)

Negative. I put the DR and have never had any contact to User:Ps2045. --Achim (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Well it seems an odd coincidence, highly improbable that the events are unconnected, that yesterday I left an abusive (effing d****) comment in response to previous deletion (which I missed the notification for), then after my intemperate comment ALL my images are listed for deletion. So you have no connection to Favalli or Natuur12? What exactly prompted you to list all my images for deletion at the point in time you did?--149.254.218.171 21:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Besides the fact that I think highly of Achim and the note I just left at his talk page? Not really. There is no conspiracy.... Besides, you are evading your block anyways. Natuur12 (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
So you do admit you are in cahoots, that the deletion request does not actually relate to valid reasons for deletion and was wholly inspired by my intemperate comment yesterday? I would love to know what actually was the inspiration for the mass deletion request occurring when it did. Seems very much an abuse of process to me.--149.254.181.115 22:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
No and there was no abuse besides you violating Commons policy by evading your block. Natuur12 (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 Comment I blocked 2 IPs. Yann (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't know why you blocked my other IPs, I am not using multiple accounts, but my IP address does change often, maybe you want to go for some collateral damage because my civil objections are so distasteful? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.254.181.115 (talk)
  • (edit conflict with above) @Ps2045: , this is not how to handle alleged abuse. STOP! If you'd like to know how to proceed, contact me., you may use my user page on Wikiversity,[3]. You are welcome there, you will not be evading any block, and I consider this a part of the educational mission of Wikiversity, training users in how do what they want to do, if possible, without creating unnecessary conflict. You might even be able to express and explore your "strange ideas" there. --Abd (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
@Ps2045: for clarification: There is no conspiracy, I just had a look at new uploads and found yours of 12 September. --Achim (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Pat Hingle (4443330082 724d5a94a0 z).jpg

What is the correct license for this image and who is the correct copyright owner? Would an Admin try to mark this image and fix this issue.

Is it a 1977 ad? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is published in National Geographic in September 1977. The question is, was it published with or without copyright notice. I created a deletion request for determining that. Taivo (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Nazi flag with green swastika.svg

This file was subject to a DR for COM:SCOPE. Its original name was "Proposed Flag of Hungary.svg". I kept the file but as its name could be highly offensive I renamed it and protected it both from editing and from moving. I reported the fact on this board in case some fellow admin might want to have a second look at the thing. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 11:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason for speedy keep it. Please refrain from such actions in future, as it might be seen abusive. The RfD has been reopened, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nazi flag with green swastika.svg -- A.Savin 12:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes A.Savin, but just because I know that the matter could be controversial I reported the fact here, so not to leave it 'hidden'. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Help with a deletion

Can someone help me and delete Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2014 ? I have been seeking for help now to fix the Wiki Loves Africa main page for now a week and I am at a loss of how to get help on this issue. And with the contest starting very soon, I am running out of time. Since I got no answer in the "global" places where I posted my request for help, I am now spamming people one by one in hope that someone could help. In short, what I need is an ACTIVE administrator who is ALSO a translator admin so that he can

  1. delete Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2014 and
  2. move the current Commons:Wiki Loves Africa to Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2014

I am admin, but I do not have the translator bit so I can not move those pages nor can I delete them. I tried to fix that in doing a copy/paste of the original page on the 2014 page. But translations did not follow. I was told a proper move should be done.
Can any one help me here ? Pleaaaaasssseeeee Anthere (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Done Done - Romaine (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Kermboy29

A new Jermboy sock has emerged, immediate block requested. Fry1989 eh? 17:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Help request: Possible use of an image to call an individual a compulsive liar here and es.WP (Spanish WP)

I don't see how this image demonstrates a liar, except for possibly an individual's interpretation of some of the slight body language, so why did Luisdecarlos upload this image and label it as he did? Did the subject of this image authorize being called a compulsive liar or is this some indirect bullying?

In the two edits seen here: https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitomanía&diff=prev&oldid=84823088

User Luisdecarlos adds the following:

Google tells me this filename means "Lies forever.jpg" and the caption means "Compulsive liar." I searched with Tineye to see if I could find a matching image and found no results.

Luisdecarlos also uploaded the image in question the same day he added it to the es.WP Mitoman article:
current 10:08, 1 September 2015 Thumbnail for version as of 10:08, 1 September 2015 625 × 901 (92 KB) Luisdecarlos (talk | contribs) User created page with UploadWizard

It was tagged, "User:OgreBot/Uploads by new users/2015 September 01 09:00."

So, my specific questions are:

  1. Did Luisdecarlos create this image for its stated use or, being a new user, did he think he could upload a picture of a friend or someone random to identify that individual as a compulsive liar?
  2. If he did create it, was the subject of the image informed he was going to be shown as an example of a liar?
  3. Even if there's no problem with it being on the Commons, should its filename & description be changed here?
  4. Even if there's no problem with it being on the Commons AND the filename & description are fine, should it be used on es.WP in the Mitoman article as an example of a liar? (Obviously someone would need to follow-up on es.WP about this point.)

Sorry all I can do is point this out, but my real-life limitations are getting in the way of doing this myself and I probably won't make it back to this page or es.WP, as I am mostly on en.WP and even there my health limits what I can do. Thanks in advance if you can work on this! — Geekdiva (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems the image was withdrawn from es:wp articles. I have proposed the file for deletion. In my opinion, we cannot keep it, since we can imagine the uploader only wanted to insult someone else. BrightRaven (talk) 06:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Looking at this my personal view is that this was intended as some form of attack image and as such is vandalism. I've closed the DR and deleted it on that basis. --Herby talk thyme 07:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Setembre

Commons:Administrators/ca your main page has September spelled wrong in French. It is Septembre. The same for Agost for August, last month. Does no one check spelling. on important pages? WayneRay (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You can fix the typography errors by editing the page. Thanks! :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
ca is Catalan, not French... Thibaut120094 (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete a file hoax

The File:Thilde-Anguille.pdf is a hoax (empty, nothing to see), do you want delete this one ? (LaVoiture-balai (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC))

The file works for me even in PDF plugin mode. I can't tell what this thing is but is being used in the French Wikipedia. If you think it should go, please nominate it for deletion. De728631 (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Use in fr.wp was to ask about this file. DR created. Yann (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Empty redirects

I had a sub-page of redirects from files I have renamed that are no longer in use, if an admin would be kind enough to delete them. Fry1989 eh? 01:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done all. Taivo (talk) 11:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Flag of Kiev

On the following page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Flags_with_angels

and also in Media Viewer,

why is the flag of Kiev listed as being in Russia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.3.118 (talk • contribs)

Thank you very much for pointing to a mistake, which is corrected now. -- MaxxL - talk 09:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Inactivity run for August-September 2015 has ended

Hi! The inactivity run for August-September 2015 has now ended. Three administrators have just been desysopped on Meta as a result of their inactivity. I already thanked each and every one of them on their talk pages, but please join me here in thanking @Alhen, @Letartean and @Lobo for their involvement as admins and for their excellent service to our community over the years. Thank you all, and here's to hope we'll see you active again soon! odder (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Please delete

Aleksej Pechkurov, some IP removes my speedy--Motopark (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Thibaut120094 (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

date

Why is the opening page continuing to show September 16?

Why is main pagestill showing September 16? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.3.118 (talk • contribs)

No idea, what you mean. Does the main page show a date? Mine doesn't. --Túrelio (talk) 07:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Please close this DR

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Monument to Tapio Rautavaara in Åggelby (Oulunkylä).jpg, can be deleted, picture moves to finnish Wikipedia.--Motopark (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done by Ankry. Taivo (talk) 07:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Images still in upload stash after being logged out while uploading?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T113043

Last night, I was uploading a "full set" of 50 new photographs with UploadWizard, but during the very last stage of the process (the "publish" stage) I presumably was logged out and received the "You must be logged in to save files in the upload stash." failure message for my first three files in the stash, and then nothing (except the "Remove" option) for the other 47 files. Quite literally everything had been inputed into UploadWizard (the files, descriptions, categories, geocodes, etc.), so I was hoping that this could simply be a case of verifying that I'm logged in (which I am again now). Unfortunately, due to my slow upload speeds and thorough approach to describing uploads, I had invested almost four hours in this batch of 50 files, and at the time I was really hopeful that something could be done to recover all of my work.

At this point, though, I've more or less accepted that the files and my work are lost, but I thought that (after being tipped to try here) it wouldn't hurt to ask. All of the files are photos of the University of North Texas campus, with the first in the stash being File:University_of_North_Texas_September_2015_01_(Maple_Street_Hall).jpg and the last being File:University_of_North_Texas_September_2015_50_(Apogee_Stadium).jpg. I will be deeply grateful to anyone who can successfully retrieve for me everything I've entered into UploadWizard and/or complete the final publication step of the upload for me.

Note: I initially posted a very similar message to the UploadWizard feedback page last night.

Michael Barera (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi: Michael Barera I feel your pain, and literally have in power outages, internet loss, computer crash and cat on my keyboard. The only suggestion I can make for the future is to put all that stuff in a file on your hard-drive before sitting down to upload to Commons. Then perhaps upload in smaller batches especially if your internet connection is slow or wobbly. That way if you do lose the line, the information will be in a notepad or text edit file as plain text (complete with any needed Wikimarkup) and you won't lose a thing in a crash.
Also if it gives you that "you must be logged in" thing, open a different window of your browser, log in, return to the page you're on and preview... voila you're logged in. That temporary logging-off stuff happens to me all the time because I live at the end of a long wobbly piece of internet string in the middle of nowhere. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
@Michael Barera: I am very sorry but there is nothing that commons admins can do. Can you report the problem on phabricator: please? You can try to push the files from upload stash (Special:UploadStash & MediaWiki:EnhancedStash.js). I suggest to use a standalone desktop applications. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Seems reported yet: phabricator:T113043 --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
That is essentially what I feared. I'm slowly working on reuploading now. Anyway, thanks for your time and your effort; Ellin Beltz, your note about using a text editor is a good one. Thanks so much, and all the best! Michael Barera (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Arturo_Elias User Image No Fair Use

User Image No Fair Use — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.238.81.82 (talk)

✓ Done I nominated 3 last uploads for deletion, because I suspected, that they are out of scope. The other uploads were deleted by others. Taivo (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect renaming of files?

I just noticed file "La division de la Gaule en 511-es.svg" has been renamed as "Map Gaul divisions 511-es.svg" (strangely enough changing from the original French to English, which is incorrect according to this). I may be mistaken but it seems to me the original file was the French map and all others derive from it. If the name is changed to harmonize the whole group (the reason given), the new name MUST be in French (as language cannot change during renaming). Could an administrator check whether I am right and, if so, please revert the renaming and warn the renamers? Thank you.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The renaming of File:La division de la Gaule en 511-es.svg may violate the file renaming criteria. I don't see that you've tried to resolve this directly with Capricorn4049. I've notified User:Capricorn4049 of this discussion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
My point was actually for an administrator to verify whether I was correct or not (I may be wrong) and, if right, to undo the renamings (and the new links in the articles) and let users that perform this renamings know that this is incorrect. I did not address any users because I may be wrong and, if I am not and I happen to be right, I consider this to be administator tasks, not a regular user's like me (with no power to under renamings, as far as I can remember). Thank you.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
For me, it's ok to use French. I just followed the request of User:Bibi Saint-Pol. I've notified him of this discussion. --Capricorn4049 (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I hope I am not mistaken but there may be other recent instances of incorrect renaming. As far as I can see Map Burgundian Netherlands 1477-fr.svg was originally in French as well and so was Map Crusader states 1102-fr.svg (I checked quickly so I may well be wrong...). If so, they could be renamed, but in French... Thank you.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. There are a lot of renamings which I asked for recently, see my history. Basically, I created a bunch of other versions templates for SVG maps showing history in French, since I realized there were often many translations for the same map, but it was quite impossible to find them from a single file. (I don't know why but on Commons, French-speakers are the best for translatable SVG maps ;)
I must precise I am a native French-speaker, but that said, when it comes to harmonizing names, it seems to me English is a best option: the file name has more chance to be understood by a great number if it is in English rather than in French. Furthermore here, the French title was not very sober and descriptive: it includes an article (La = "The") and did not state it was a map ("Division de la Gaule" could also refer to an organigram e.g.)--so it had to be changed anyways.
The point of Rowanwindwhistler is quite surprising to me: I saw dozens of administrators perform hundreds of renaming (from French, Spanish, English... to English), and none was never refused. If there was a problem here, I guess it would have been mentionned earlier. And having a title in French is not a big deal, but what if we talk about Arabic or Chinese? Most users are not able to even read these languages, so the file title should remain cryptic for all the translations since the original is? I don't believe something like "世界地图-fr.svg" would be good for all of us. But if so, the rule should be changed to explicitly states that "the language of a series of translations should rely on the language of the first file uploaded", or something like that.
Last remark: it is often that there is not a single "original". E.g., if a file is uploaded in French, it is then translated into English, and the English is translated into Russian, which is translated into Ukrainian too: they all are "original" for one another. Or it can also be that a translation changes the content of the "original" (by changing colors, adding/removing data and so on), so that it becomes a new "original" on which the majority of translations will be based... Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 09:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I hope I am misunderstanding the last comments because because otherwise there is something very wrong here:
  • English is not better or worse than any language in Commons and files must NEVER be translated from one language to English. Quoting from the rules: Files should NOT be renamed only because the filename is not English and/or is not correctly capitalized. Remember, Commons is a multilingual project, so there's no reason to favor English over other languages. [4].
  • If the original title was wrong (wrong according to the rules above), it may be changed, but not translated. So if the original file was Turkish, they new title will be Turkish (but right, of course).
  • The original file is the first one uploaded, end of the story. If the first file in the group is in Chinese and they derivatives have to be harmonized for some reason, they will all be in Chinese.
  • Rules can be changed but, till they are, are to be followed, not disregarded as ones sees fit, even for the best of reasons. So please abide by the above rule (even if you do not like it and think it should be changed) and undo any renames that have been done based on the above (because they are incorrect and break the renaming rules).
Thank you.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Please use Rename sparingly and only when you are sure at least one of the criteria is satisfied. To quote Commons:File renaming, "Commons aims to provide stable file names as there might be external file clients and file moving involves significant human and computing resources."
If you look at the footnote to Criterion 4 of Commons:File renaming and cited by Bibi Saint-Po in his/her request, you will see that it is very limited in its application. "Just because images share a category or a subject does not mean that they are part of a set. There are two scenarios that this criterion is designed for. First, certain complex templates (such as those that use BSicons or that display football kits) assume that the images used in them will follow a specific naming convention. Wikisource also uses a specific naming convention for the source files they transcribe. Second, files that form parts of a whole (such as scans from the same book or large images that are divided into smaller portions due to Commons' upload size restriction) should follow the same naming convention so that they appear together, in order, in categories and lists." I think Bibi Saint-Po's work linking related file pages via their "Other versions" parameter is important and helpful. That said, I don't see that the rename under discussion here satisfies this criterion. {{Other versions/Map Gaul divisions 511}} and other templates created by Bibi Saint-Po will work fine with no renaming of the file pages. Renaming file pages does not make files pages linked by "Other versions" in the Information Template easier to find. The "Other versions" links suffice. Commons:File renaming states "Files should NOT be renamed only because the new name looks a bit better. Files should NOT be renamed only because the filename is not English. ... Remember, Commons is a multilingual project, so there's no reason to favor English over other languages."
Please follow the guidance of Commons:File naming and Commons:File renaming in your requests and moves, unless you have a very good reason to do otherwise. "Media files can be uploaded with names in any language in any script." "Uploaders often have schemas naming their files; moving files might break them. If possible, language and schema should be preserved, as well as the camera or catalogue number." You may propose changes to guidance on the associated talk pages. Bibi Saint-Po, please use Criterion 4 in accordance with its footnote. Capricorn4049; before acting on a rename request be sure that that at least one of the criteria is satisfied. Otherwise, deny the request. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
No problem with renaming back the files mentioned above. However, the way that Rowanwindwhistler interprets the rules is also wrong. The rules under "Which files should not be renamed?" (especially Rule 1 and 2) only say that "Files should not be renamed only because...". They do not forbid to correct small errors (Rule 1) or to correct names that are not correct capitalized (Rule 2) or even to change the language at the same time, if the file is anyway renamed because of another good reason according to "Which files should be renamed?". For example, the uploader can verry well request, to change the name of a file and at the same time change the language and make that the file looks a bit better. He should only not do it if the only reasen is to change the language or to make that the file looks a bit better. And also to harmonize the files, it is ok to change the language. There is no rule that forbids it. --Capricorn4049 (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Let the administrators clarify if your reasonnig is correct and mine is wrong or the other way round. On your second example ("They do not forbid to correct ... or to correct names that are not correct capitalized (Rule 2)"), the rule is actually the opposite: files CANNOT be renamed to correct a mistake due to capital letters ("Files should NOT be renamed only because the filename is not English and/or is not correctly capitalized."). On your third example ("the uploader can verry well request, to change the name of a file and at the same time change the language and make that the file looks a bit better") I was the uploader of some of the files and I did not request any change of language. On the other hand "and make that the file looks a bit better" is not a valid reason ("As a matter of principle it's best to leave all files with generally valid names at their locations, even if slightly better names may exist"), even if I had asked, which I did not. I think (but I may be wrong, let the administrators clarify which is the right interpretation of the rule) "there's no reason to favor English over other languages." rules out any change of language by anyone who was not the uploader (and when the goal is to rename a series of files from several uploaders the request would have to be made by them all or at least they would have to agree, which was not case here, at least for the ones I uploaded).--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Capricorn4049: yes, you could grant a rename request to correct small errors or capitalization or change language if it was requested by the uploader. I might question the uploader, though, if the request was more than a few months after the upload. However, we tend to defer to the uploader for the most part. Uploaders play a crucial role on Commons. On occasion, some of our non-English-language contributors have felt unwelcome. Consequently, be particularly sensitive to the implications of a request to change the language of a filename to English, if it does not come from the uploader. I would not do it unless I thought the request was compelling and would be thought so by most of our colleagues. Also, I would attempt to obtain the consent of the uploaders, as Rowanwindwhistler suggests. To harmonize the file names (Criterion 4) is a very narrow criterion (see above). I don't think further discussion is needed. I will make the changes. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Finnish Air Force flags

Hello everyone. There is a problem. I am trying to remove wrong (fantastic and misinforming) files, depicting Finnish Air force flags and insignia.

Now user/administrator Yann thinks that these files are perfectly fine and there is no reason for deletion. So, the question I would like to ask is: why to create, keep and refuse to delete files that are pretending to be the flags or the insignia of the Finnish Air force but have in fact nothing to do with it? Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, You claim to be an expert, but even "experts" have to follow rules here. There is no reason to speedy delete these files, and very little to delete them at all (example: File:Ilmasotakoulun lippu.svg is in use, so no reason to delete it). You can add {{Factual accuracy}}, and explain why on the talk page. And when you create a deletion request, please do it properly, otherwise we have to go after you, cf. [5]. You have a gadget for that. See in your preferences. Your DRs are not included in the list (Commons:Deletion requests/2015/09/10), so nobody will see them. Please add them in this list. Finally, never do that, it is like vandalism.
In my opinion, it would be more productive to improve these files, rather than to delete them. If you don't know how to do it yourself, you can ask on the Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop with a detailled description. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree with Kwasura that all these files look like hoaxes and the currently banned User:FiCiW9 is probably a sockpuppet of User:Heraldia. So there are two options: Keep the files and mark them as fantasy/fictional or delete them. --Magnus (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
There is no account by the name FiCiW9. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, should be User:FiCiW (the 9 was supposed to be the ]) --Magnus (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Magnus. I appreciate your understanding. For all to notice - correct files exist already. These fictional files are additional and this addition is misinforming for all users who are not experts on subject. My advice is to delete wrong files and keep correct. --Kwasura (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing is happening. Noone cares maybe. OK, I will correct all the files myself. --Kwasura (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It would probably have helped turning the deletion requests towards "delete" if you had explained what exactly is completely fantastic and misinforming about these flags (providing links to depictions of the correct ones). Apart from that, I think there might be a copyright issue: The files are tagged {{PD-FinlandGov}}, which (according to it's text) is for decisions and statements – how would this apply to flags? --El Grafo (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong about the copyright, it is still {{PD-FinlandGov}}. However, users FiCiW and Heraldia uploaded the files which are heraldically incorrect. First: each and every file is uploaded with the Finnish Lion instead of the correct symbol - the flying eagle on the insignia and the swastika on the flags. Additionally these two users (or one user and his puppet?) removed the swastika from the insignias on the Air force Headquarters' flag and the Air Force Academy' flag and replaced it with the finnish cocade. Now there is no other reason to create all these incorrect files rather than to misinform the other users of the Internet and the Wikipedia. Hard to find the correct name for these action of the mentioned user/s other than "vandalism". Correct flags of the Finnish Air Force components can easily be found in the internet. Here are Lapland Air Command' flag, Satakunta Air Command' flag, Karelia Air Command flag, so you've got the idea. Also I recommend all to read this article. Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 10:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Fry1989, you opposed the deletion of these files. Do you have an opinion about these now? Thanks for your input. The users who created these are blocked, so they can't comment. If nobody else oppose the deletion, I won't object. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I am confused by the nominations. Some are real and some are not, but I don't know which. Fry1989 eh? 16:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Fry1989, I corrected the files, but now we have too many files depicting the same thing. We need to keep only one image of each flag, badge or insignia with the most correct name. Let me do some suggestions:
Correct Name Correct Image Correct Name Correct Image
Suomen ilmavoimien tunnus Ilmavoimien esikunnan lippu
Lapin Lennoston lippu Karjalan Lennoston lippu
Satakunnan Lennoston lippu Ilmasotakoulun lippu

Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Finnish Air Force pilot badge

I've just noticed yet another incorrect fileuploaded by the same notorious user WPK~commonswiki. One too many incorrect files for this user. Time to ask questions about the true intentions of this user. I didn't nominated this file to be deleted yet. Correct file exists but need to be renamed "Suomen lentomerkki ohjaajalle". References: Finnish Air Force web page and the Military regulations on emblems and insignias. --Kwasura (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Review of block please

I'd appreciate another admin checking out my blocks relating to these "contributions". It would appear that some en wp issues have spilled over onto Commons and led to some unpleasant editing. My initial block of a day was simply to allow things to settle. I've attempted to communicate reasonably about Commons on the user talk page however I've simply been sworn at. I do not know the en wp folk referred to, I simply saw "attack" editing which is unacceptable. I've reblocked for a week now as it seems unlikely this will cool down in the short term - en wp seems to have found dealing with this user very difficult. I sincerely prefer not to block folk who contribute to Commons however aggressive unreasonable behaviour is not what makes the world go around.

I'll leave further interactions with this user to others but would appreciate other views on the blocks. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I've just revoked talk page access as the page had been blanked - until this has been reviewed I felt it best to leave a proper trail. I have no problem with TP access being restored after the review. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
This was a good block. His next block should be indefinite. Taivo (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Entirely agree with both the block and with Taivo's comment. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
1. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
1. -- Geagea (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Agree totally with both the block & Taivo's comment. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This one has floated back via an IP address with a similarly pleasant approach to yet another user see here. I'm thinking that maybe an extended/indef block becomes appropriate however there is a threat to return with puppet accounts so folk may like to be aware of that. Comments welcome of course. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 15:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Ya it's not every day I see this kind of language on my talk page https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ellin_Beltz&diff=172914925&oldid=172914588. The user appears to be someone who feels the gutter derivative of the Latin for "black" to be appropriate on Commons. And then the lines " Go ahead, block me permanently if you want. I don't care. See what happens afterwards. Yeah, I'm testing you." do rather look like a threat. I'm totally in favor of this block and blocking any of the "testing" accounts as well. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Significant backlog at COM:DR

Hello admins, I have noticed that there is an unusually large backlog at COM:DR. Perhaps the usual closing admins are away. It would be great if each active admin could take the time to close a few DRs; as usual, many of them look to be uncontroversial "delete"s. This, that and the other (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It's probably just end of summer, back to school and work slowdown. We had another of these earlier this year, but I also think that part of the problem is the loss of admins who did a LOT of deletion nomination closes. With that said, thanks for the reminder. Now it's up to the rest of us to take up the slack from those who used to do this practically full-time. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Here be low-hanging fruit... Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Where? ;). Natuur12 (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

DR closes failed

I could not get these four files to delete during the process of closing Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by TPIstván. Could someone wave a wand more magic than mine and then tell me how to do this in future? Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, There are deleted, just purge the page. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I must have been having connection problems this morning too, I had to constantly purge pages for DNs too! Thanks for checking! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

A conflict with an administrator - renaming rules

On 24th September User:Ahonc wrote on my discussion page (Google translation) in a topic Переименование User talk:Wieralee#Переименование :

Renaming
Explain the reason for renaming the file File:Русские войска вступают в г. Бучач. 1916. армія Брусилова.jpg. Why change came in the jargon priperlis? - Anatoliy (A) (talk) 12:23, September 24, 2015 (UTC)
Caution
Renaming a file File:Buczacz 15111.JPG you broke 2 of Commons:File_renaming#Which_files_should_not_be_renamed?. You can not rename the files because they were not named in English. If potvoreniya violations in the future, you will be deprived of the flag renames the file .-- Anatoliy (A) (talk) 12:30, September 24, 2015 (UTC)
Ahonc (A): Refer to the rules contained in the website: Commons: File renaming. Note that there is no requirement for the number 1. Criterion principle that the request to change the original user name, even if there are no other reasons. It is the kindness and gratitude Photo enrichment Commons. Wieralee (dyskusja) 12:34, September 24, 2015 (UTC)
Ahonc (A): "Unless there is a compelling reason not to, uploader requests should be honored." Wieralee (dyskusja) 12:41, September 24, 2015 (UTC)
You broke the rules again запрос на переименование : a request to rename been rejected three times, but in spite of this you have done the renaming. Therefore, you have taken the right .-- Anatoliy (A) (talk) 14:03, September 27, 2015 (UTC)
  • I haven't broken the rules. On the site Commons: File renaming we see: "Unless there is a compelling reason not to, uploader requests should be honored." All this causes were the uploader's requests.
Especially the last one case [6]: I was hesitating, too -- and the second refuse was mine. But we were talking on the first requester (User:Микола Василечко page User talk:Микола Василечко#File:Лемківська каплиця, 60 операції Вісла, 61-224-0081.jpg about this renaming -- and the uploader of the file (User:ЯдвигаВереск) has realized her mistake and she asked for a change of name.
I feel wronged. I have not broken the rules. Help me, please. Wieralee (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, for renaming File:Русские войска вступают в г. Бучач. 1916. армія Брусилова.jpg to current name in Wikipedia you may got block I guess. Yes, uploader request should be honoured, but read full note: This is a courtesy, not an absolute, however. If a file mover feels that a proposed new name is disruptive or inappropriate, they can suggest a different name or decline the request. The same with renamings from Polish to Englosh. About the case of ЯдвигаВереск's rename: there where criterion 3 reason, which was rejected 3 times before, not criterion 1, which you should honored. So, you was warned about inappropriate renames. Why do you continue to deal with controversial renamings if you know that it is dangerous?--Anatoliy (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
@Ahonc: Which files should be renamed is community approved (with the "Additional information" section). I think there is a huge misunderstanding between you and Wiralee. How can this issues be solved in a drama-low and mellow way? --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Just give her back the flag. There is no need to remove someone's file mover acces over a minor disagreement. There is no abuse and Wieralee her interpertation of the rename policy is a logical one. Even if there was a mistake, people make mistakes so no biggie. (I don't speak Russian or Ukrainian so it is hard to check if it was a mistake or not) It seems to me that Wieralee is doing a good job adressing the points made by Ahonc. Natuur12 (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
    Well, OK. But to avoid misunderstanding, we should know what rule is override when conflict. For example, should renamers approve renames from one language to other if it is uploader request?--Anatoliy (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
It makes sense to discuss this, likely at Commons talk:File renaming so we can clarify this in the rename criterion and prevent such misunderstandings. Are you fine if i restore Wiralee's flag? --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I restore it.--Anatoliy (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I support Wieralee and everyone who has supported hiemr in this discussion. I also have 2 questions:
  1. Is it customary at Commons that an action such as that taken against Wieralee is taken without a word of it on that user's talk page?
  2. Is it customary for a Commons administrator to take such actions, effectively a blocking action, after a dispute in which that administrator was involved personally?
Scary! Cordially, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

File renaming

Hello I've made a request for the renaming of this file: [9]. There is a non-free file in English wikipedia with exactly the same name. Thank you. Gtrbolivar (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

In this case you should request rename local file in English Wikipedia.--Anatoliy (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
There's no evidence that the Commons file was published before 1945, as required by the template. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Please remove the jpg.JPG double ending

I made by mistake (not remembering that the file format ending is added automatically) a series of files with a .jpg*.JPG ending. Please remove the first .jpg (part of the name of the file that is not needed) and please excuse me for the inconvenience. Regards --Γλαύκος shoot it 16:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I renamed a couple of files from .jpg.JPG to .jpg. Did I miss any? --Stefan4 (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Please delete

User:NPNAMART, out of scope, user creates again and removed speedy tag--Motopark (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Thibaut120094 (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Flickr image reviewers needed urgently

Over the last few week the Category:Flickr images needing human review has become terribly backlogged. In the past there were usually less than 100 images needing review sometimes much lower and occasionally even none but now there are almost 2,500 and it only seems to be only increasing every day. Any help from editors with reviewer rights is welcome. I'm not entirely sure why the FlickreviewR bot is failing all these files many of which are clearly good. Some appear to be rotated images but the bot cannot tell the difference pre and post rotation. Perhaps delaying the SteinsplitterBot rotation would allow images to be passed and then rotated after say 24 hours after upload giving time for FlickreviewR to do its thing. I think many are large resolutions which for some reason also get failed. I don't know the ins and outs of the bot so that aspect is above my pay grade. Anyone with ideas on how to avoid such a backlog would be good too. Ww2censor (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Where is a problem with the rotation? Yes, that happens in a few cases but most files seems to be changed when uploaded using flickr2commons therefore the sha1 check fails. This is a flickr2commons tool problem. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh my, if Flickr2commons is changing the checksum of the file during transition, then it needs to be switched off until this is fixed. @Steinsplitter: could you provide some analysis of a couple of sample files showing this has happened and if possible exactly what changes (e.g. if the EXIF data is modified)? --Fæ (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
File on commons: e5s2lddvii5vh5oxh8ftgje1dnl9c8m (pulled from commonswiki_p) and file on flickr: 7939db551e7185ccd54bbaed231c78aef711a736 @Zhuyifei1999: . @Fæ: you get the same result? --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Which file? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
And I see a lot of EXIF orientation issues I'm unable to fix --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
(It's this file on Commons) --Fæ (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Starting from the same SHA1 commonswiki_p match, then by deducing which file this was, and going through Flickr and downloading the original source image, I get 7939DB551E7185CCD54BBAED231C78AEF711A736 as the calculated SHA1; same as your conclusion. Very odd. This does have a lot of unused EXIF data packed in it, and the original is at 270 degrees compared to the way it is displayed on Commons. However, regardless of redundant EXIF data, the outcome on Commons should always be identical to the original file on Flickr.
Unless @Magnus Manske: can explain what's going on if this is a valid workflow, it appears that F2C is creating unnecessary work for volunteers on Commons. I don't have a measure of the problem though, and we ought to do this before forcing a switch off of F2C. If someone has a bit of time to fiddle with the SQL, it would be useful to check how many uploads a day we see from F2C where the SHA1 is a mismatch to Flickr (perhaps by simply identifying how many on average get flagged for review?). We can then judge if this is an emergency switch-off situation. --Fæ (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I could find the mismatch. I tried COM:SHA1 and put in 7939db551e7185ccd54bbaed231c78aef711a736 which gave me File:A Day In New York 14th May 2015- Rally to Save NYC (17036140084).jpg. So this shouldn't be the problem. I think we had a discussion about the bot some months ago but no one fixed the source. (I got lost at the lambda expression in python) --McZusatz (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hmm. The even odder part is that $ sha1sum A_Day_In_New_York_14th_May_2015-_Rally_to_Save_NYC_\(17036140084\).jpg => 7939db551e7185ccd54bbaed231c78aef711a736 A_Day_In_New_York_14th_May_2015-_Rally_to_Save_NYC_(17036140084).jpg I'm pretty sure it's exif orientation again. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC) EDIT: MW store base 36 format while sha1sum output base 16 format; that's probably the reason --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Re-thinking about this issue, I think I found a way to fix this. Wait --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Fixed (code) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
All files originally in Category:Flickr images needing human review got a re-scan with new code. This still leave 1000 files to be manually reviewed --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

please hide the phone-number

please hide the phone-number from history User talk:Drtutuwatutu --Motopark (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
IN the comment are the number also, please hide it--Motopark (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Done. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 15:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

What in the heck am I doing wrong here???

I either would like to rename the page to Category:Lincoln_skylines or delete - it's my first time using a sandbox and I failed miserably :p :... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sandbox
Many thanks ^^ ! Hanyou23 (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Please disregard - looks like a bot cleaned it for me... super :D ! Hanyou23 (talk) 02:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Please delete

Resolved

Uploader will that his / her uploads will deleted, see User talk:Aarna Gupta Ludhiana--Motopark (talk) 06:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleted, blocked. Materialscientist (talk) 06:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisting all Scandinavians

Hi, I raised a similar request about amending the filename blacklist (here), so that filenames beginning "File:Scan" would be allowed if like "Scandinavia" rather than "Scan_003321" etc. I've noticed a couple of bounced files, an example being File:Scandinavian immigrants in New York, 1630-1674; with appendices on Scandinavians in Mexico and South America, 1532-1640, Scandinavians in Canada, 1619-1620, Some Scandinavians in New York in the (14745394266).jpg. Could someone amend the blacklist filter to ensure we are not discriminating against valid Scandinavia related uploads? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I pointed out what the problem is in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 54#MediaWiki:Filename-prefix-blacklist considered harmful? but I guess I was just wasting my time. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
No expert in this but Scan should be changed to Scan_ and Scan0 to cover the most obvious cases of scanned images. Some manufacturer-specific DSC filters are superfluous as covered by standard DSC filter and Image (maybe with _ and 0 behind) is missing. @Magog the Ogre and Steinsplitter: - comments?--Denniss (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
It was probably an oversight in how broadly it is currently written. How about scan[\W\d_]? This will stop any upload that begins with the whole word "scan" (including scan0) but not the partial word scan. We will need to make another rule for just scan.ext (I tried several fiddles but I couldn't get this to work in a single regex in the current expression). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Magog the Ogre: I still don't see a reason why MediaWiki:Filename-prefix-blacklist is needed at all when we have much more complete and precise rules in MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. The Scan.ext case can be handled with protection and redirection to File:Name.jpg, as it already is for most permutations. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
@LX: no argument. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

There seems general agreement that this should be fixed. Can someone who has sysop rights please now fix it? --Fæ (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Empty image pages

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T113878

For patrollers of Category:Media without a license noticing a rise in cases in the last few days, please consider supporting or commenting on phabricator:T113878. The increase seems due to a spurt of 503 failures on accessing WMF servers when uploading an image with its associated text page via the Commons API. I'm seeing 0.3% of my uploads fail over the weekend. The numbers may be relatively small or unnoticed for most uploaders, however this does create quite a lot of follow-on work for volunteers to identify and repair file descriptions and licenses.

Count Date
Images uploaded to Commons with empty text pages by day
962 2015-09-22
1106 2015-09-23
694 2015-09-24
769 2015-09-25
1329 2015-09-26
1375 2015-09-27
1765 2015-09-28
1212 2015-09-29
1797 2015-09-30

A more meaningful measure is probably to examine my file uploads that needed fixing due to empty image text pages. Testing the whole of September, shows this problem did not exist until 25th September (i.e. zero matches) even though the identical upload process was being used, and that on average 0.3% of uploads using similar API processes may be affected: 

 ------- ------- ------- ------------ 
| empty | total | ratio | Date       |
 ------- ------- ------- ------------ 
|     0 | 10016 | 0.00% | 2015-09-23 |
|     0 | 11201 | 0.00% | 2015-09-24 |
|    29 | 10320 | 0.28% | 2015-09-25 |
|    35 | 10179 | 0.34% | 2015-09-26 |
|    28 |  8855 | 0.32% | 2015-09-27 |
|     7 |  6472 | 0.11% | 2015-09-28 |
|    29 |  9417 | 0.31% | 2015-09-29 |
|    28 | 10844 | 0.26% | 2015-09-30 |
|    28 |  9281 | 0.30% | 2015-10-01 |
|    30 |  9403 | 0.32% | 2015-10-02 |
 ------- ------- ------- ------------

Note that the 28th was a low personal upload count day due to connection problems.

I cannot spot any long term trends, however more sophisticated analysis by WMF ops may provide an insight as to whether changes made by WMF dev/ops on the 25th are a root cause of issues seen, or whether it is down to some external cause.

Update Added latest figures. This looks like a long term problem and the uptick in daily general failures would seem to indicate a wider issue than just my uploads, definitely worthy of an ops investigation. --Fæ (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Please check

Spécial:Emailuser/Gabrielle Marie WMCH, I don't know where this text shall be moved--Motopark (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. Link corrected.
@Gabrielle Marie WMCH: The namespace is Special:, not Spécial: which is the one for frwiki and other French-speaking projects. Please be careful. Regards, Thibaut120094 (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, thank you for amending --Gabrielle Marie WMCH (talk) 08:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Michael Jackson at Madison Square Garden. September 10, 2001.png

This image comes from a flickr account with 11 images. Is it own work? Does anyone know. I don't see any other images of Michael Jackson on Commons from this account but it seems to have been on this account for almost 4 years. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

See her and the EXIF her Copyright: ©Alpha_Globe Photos Inc.. -- Geagea (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done I deleted it. Taivo (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Non-free images

The following two images, from Lucas Lima and Gabigol, are not free. Can somebody delete them? MYS77 ✉ 18:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Thibaut120094 (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Image cleanup and blocking

Can someone cleanup the vandalism at File:Al Jazeera English Doha Newsroom 1.jpg and block the socks of User:David Beals? -- GB fan 00:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done. Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. -- GB fan 00:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Another image, File:Acer Aspire 8920 Gemstone.jpg and more socks. -- GB fan 01:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done. Materialscientist (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

please move

Benutzer Diskussion:Zonk43 to right place--Motopark (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Content moved to User talk:Zonk43, page deleted --Didym (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Commons is supposed to be multi-lingual, but sometimes it seems that Wikipedia is more multi-lingual than Commons... On Swedish Wikipedia, you can refer to namespaces under both Swedish and English names (but you'll be redirected to the Swedish name automatically when using an English name). On the other hand, Commons only supports English namespace names. Would it be possible to change the configuration so that you can access Commons pages by using the namespace name in any language as long as there is no conflict? --Stefan4 (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
It seems not possible yet, someone needs to add such a function to mw. You can request it on phabricator, but it will likely take years (because such things are low prior for wmf, unfortunately). --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Main in Greek page loads to a redirection page

This edit created a serious problem, as when someone tries to access the main Commons page from Greece is redirected to that page. I think that the new redirect page created the whole mess. Try the link using Αρχική_Σελίδα instead of Κύρια_Σελίδα and it works fine. Probably you just have to delete the redirect that User:Πρώτη Σερρών has created. --Γλαύκος shoot it 00:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


The problem was a double redirect which I repaired. For best, we need to move Αρχική Σελίδα to Αρχική σελίδα over the redirect, or configure it on MediaWiki:Mainpage/el. -Geraki TLG 12:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Geraki: @Glavkos: Hopefully (from a non-Greek speaker) fixed... trusting that a Greek-wikipedia crat is an authoritative source for the correct title. The page is now at Αρχική σελίδα, with Αρχική Σελίδα as a redirect. (and yes, I am aware that it's only a difference in capitalization) Revent (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

This DR

Can an Admin check if what I said is true in this DR? I did license review pass it and got a message saying the image came from a blacklisted account. If so the image should be deleted although the uploader cannot know if it comes from a blacklisted account. This DR is now 3 weeks old since no one can verify if the flickr account is blacklisted--not even me. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Closed as 'keep', since the specific image is explicitly under an acceptable license. I didn't dig into the history of why or when they were blacklisted, but the comments on the Flickr account profile imply that some of their photos would not be ok. I strongly suspect that the Flickr review bot logic would correctly handle any that are not under a permissive license, though.. since a release on Flickr under a CC license (in the presence of some other explicit declared license) would effectively be 'multi-licensing', I suspect that the bot's logic would handle anything from there correctly, and the blacklisting might not be needed. Revent (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
LOL, rereading, redundant comment, but I'm sure you get the point. Revent (talk) 11:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Out of scope pictures

[10] has plenty of out of scope pictures and fair use material--Motopark (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Deleted. --A.Savin 17:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirects/protection

I have a list of redirects that can be deleted, I've checked them all for usage. I would also like to request unprotection of following pages so the bot can move the files instead of me having to do it manually when I rename the signs. They have had a lot of IP vandalism in the past, but I'm willing to keep an eye on them.

Thank you. Fry1989 eh? 20:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Just kibitzing (I didn't look at them in detail) but generally redirects are not deleted. Even if they are not used on Wikimedia projects, there is a legitimate concern that they might be use 'externally', and removing the redirect would break such usage. Redirects should only really be deleted if they are specifically problematic. At a quick glance, these look like they are all just a matter of one 'naming pattern' versus another. (To make it clear, did not look at the unprotection yet, but will glance at it) Revent (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I've been doing the cataloguing and deletion of my redirects for a few months now, I've kept it narrow and just for the road signs. I'll stop if there is a major objection but if you ask me they're a bit messy to leave behind. As for the naming, I proposed this style on MOS about 1 1/2 to 2 years ago, they didn't think it was important enough for an official policy but gave no objection and said go ahead. Fry1989 eh? 23:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I have no objection to the names you are using... it's just some external user 'might' be using the old names... while it's 'ideally' messy to leave them, as you note, it doesn't really hurt anything to leave them. 'Deleting' them doesn't really delete them, it just hides them, so it doesn't save disk space or anything (it actually takes more) and since they are not categorized they are pretty much invisible. It really just comes down to a matter of if they are 'old enough' that someone might have linked to them at some point. If they are being externally used we don't want to break the link, and deleting them doesn't really give us any actual benefit. It's probably not a real issue one way or the other, tbh, but the 'conservative' point of view would be to let them be. Revent (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
As far as the protections only the first you listed (Road signs of Australia} is protected, and its only semi-pro, so you should be able to make whatever edits are needed. Revent (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Right, I kinda get what you're saying. If it doesn't make any difference in space or anything like that then it really doesn't matter, I just like to be "tidy". As for the pages, the rename bot doesn't automatically move the files and I have to do it manually. That gets labour-intensive after a while when I have hundreds of signs to rename, which is why I asked for full unprotection, but if the other pages aren't I'm not sure why the bot isn't working. Fry1989 eh? 20:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really certain why you're having a problem, TBH, but after glancing at your log entries I suspect that you might be moving files manually instead of using the gadget. See what's said about it here (Move & Replace is part of AjaxQuickDelete). Since CommonsDelinker is an adminbot, he should be unaffected by page protection, but as I understand it he doesn't notice manual page moves. Personally, I tend to use the option in the gadget to make the updates across all wikis with my own account, instead of using the bot. YMMV, tho. Revent (talk) 08:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Phone numbers and facebook addres in the pictures

Phương Mỹ Chi, there are plenty of information in EXIF-data, seemd to be available in facebook--Motopark (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Today the user uploaded a lot of selfies. I'll delete them speedily. Taivo (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Three were not deleted, because, they were in use in vi.wiki. Taivo (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Potd main page caption filled with errors

Can an admin kindly fulfill my edit request at Template talk:Potd/2015-10-07 ? Thanks! — hike395 (talk) 10:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Hike395: Someone had pointed this out at the VP, and I just made an edit to fix it. Your version is rather better than mine, though, so I'll tweak it again. Revent (talk)

Trans

Could a translation admin take a look at Template:Wellcome_Images/i18n and reflect the blog link there on the rest of the template versions? I'm naive on this sort of thing, so would appreciate a bit of assistance. --Fæ (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion necessary but it's nominated for deletion

A speedy deletion is necessary for this photo: [11]. It's an obvious copyright of this photo: [12]. However, it appears that someone nominated it for deletion, which will take awhile. Sancar won the Nobel Prize just recently and this copyright picture can be immediately noticed. EtienneDolet (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done clear copyvio. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Steinsplitter We also have a very strong case of SP accounts vote-stacking in that nomination. Is there something we can do about that? EtienneDolet (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Steinsplitter: File is reuploaded again. --Achim (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Re-deleted. Maybe a CU should look at this. But the account having edits x-wiki. So it is possible that the users are just fiends of the uploader. Fact is that the file in question is a obvious copyvio. Thanks for reporting! --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Are text in next category in scope

In Category:Nanum has been added a lot of text, I try delete them but second user added it back.--Motopark (talk) 09:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I reverted and deleted some things. I think, that block is not yet necessary. You warned the user, that's good. Taivo (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

combine history categories

Please, combine (merge) history categories: Category:Bila (Ternopilskyi Raion) → Category:Bila, Ternopil Raion.--Mykola Vasylechko 15:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

AbuseFilter for non latin characters in categories

Please see: Commons:Village pump#enforcing proper category names using AbuseFilter? and consider to add the following filter:

added_lines rlike "\[\[Category:[א-ת]" and !(old_wikitext rlike "\[\[Category:[א-ת]")

or even:

added_lines rlike "\[\[Category:[^a-zA-Z0-9]" and !(old_wikitext rlike "\[\[Category:[^a-zA-Z0-9]")

and warn the user that categories are usually should be written in English. Eran (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@ערן: How often this happen? Is really a filter needed? Maybe just a page which is reporting such cat creations? Please not that every filter is using conditions so we should avoid unnecessary filters. The second regex is also matching characters such as áä etc. Adding such a filter would cause a lot of false positive. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This happen quite often (@Ldorfman: , can you give some examples?).
  • Not all users have (or know) how to type special characters such as áä. There are some drawbacks with having such characters in the prefix of category name as not all readers know to type them, but in case of occurrence in the suffix, it can be easily searched using auto-completion. See for example Special:PrefixIndex/Category:ä - there are ~350-400 such categories - and I think those can be considered exceptions. Eran (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment: It needn't necessarily be limited to category creation. There are many redlinked categories that aren't in English or even in Latin letters. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I think we need community consensus for such a filter. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with this. Please wait with this request until a consensus is reached in VP. Eran (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I am fine with preventing non Latin characters in category name, but restricting to ASCII is a bit too much. We should probably allow äöü (for German names), àéèêëîô (for French names), and others (Vietnamese, etc.). Regards, Yann (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
As Eran explained, the problem, from what we see, is very relevant to Hebrew. New contributors to the he.Wikipedia, who read about the Commons and understand that free pictures should be placed there, also read very often about the need for categorization. Unfortunately, not reading instructions pages about the way things work in the Commons, they assume it's the same as in he.Wikipedia (not knowing it's a global, English-based, project). As such, with good intentions only, they try to add "relevant" categories to the files they uploaded without even looking for relevant ones in English. I see it over and over again. Look, for example, at the history of this quite recent addition: File:Bat hefer1.jpg (this user "tried" few categories in Hebrew for pictures she uploaded - at this case, only after we had asked her (in Wikipedia) to add categories to the pictures and even pointed to an instructions page...). File:Ein Gedi garden - general view.jpg and File:Ora schwarzwald.jpg are more examples.
If there's a consensus for the need of such filter, we may run a pilot of it in Hebrew characters only (if it is possible) and see how it goes... Ldorfman (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
This should be discussed in VP, really. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyvios still there after nearly a month

Copyvios File:Hailee-Steinfeld-1.png and File:Park Shin Hye.jpg are still there nearly one month after I nominated them. Is the backlog that bad, or did I do something wrong? —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 21:17, 08 October 2015

I'm not an admin, but your DRs appear validly formatted to me. Backlog for deletion requests looks to be about five weeks. —RP88 (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
TYVM. :) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 22:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done I closed all his/her deletion requests, deleted all his/her contributions and warned him/her. Taivo (talk) 08:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio

This logo File:Pakistan Navy emblem.svg of the entity is labelled as "own work" and projected as official logo on English Wikipedia article en:Pakistan Navy and also on several other language Wikipedia. It should have been uploaded under non-free fair use on English Wikipedia rather than uploading it at commons without any exif metadata. I think this file should be deleted. Later I will upload non-free fair use image. Thank you. --Human3015 (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The file is own work. Fry1989 eh? 23:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The file is copied from Official website of Pakistan navy and projected as "own work", it should be uploaded under "non-free fair use"--Human3015 (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not a copy at all, they are two completely different images. The SVG here on Commons is indeed own work. Fry1989 eh? 18:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see what's going on here. There re two types of copyright questions going on here. One of the vector image displayed, and one for the svg-source code, which is own work. We usually add that with templates instead, but still a valid claim for the source code. Now back to the vector image displayed, the question is if it reach COM:TOO or not, or if any PD-templates may apply, such as {{PD-Pakistan}} perhaps? If s, the file is, from a copyright-point of view properly tagged, but not he best it can be, from a Commons community-point of view. Josve05a (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I read from en:Pakistan Navy, that the logo was created in 1956. Copyright of Pakistani government expires after 50 years. I changed date and license. Taivo (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Iain Duncan Smith May 2015.jpg

Dear Admins,

Please feel free to mark this image. Maybe it has a special free license as the uploader indicated. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

If I understand Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Crown_copyright correctly, Crown copyright is not free, except if it's available under a "Open Government Licence" but it doesn't seem to be the case here. Thibaut120094 (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I had a background look at this photograph. From the description it appears to be taken as part of PR packs for 10 Downing Street. Last year I wrote to the site contacts asking for clarification on copyright of media on their site (there were some videos I was interested in transcoding), and whether an OGL release was possible, however I never received a reply. My presumption is that Crown Copyright remains the default, unless specified otherwise or the material is copyright ineligible (for example simple chart graphics). If anyone has time to try another email enquiry, it may be worth it. --Fæ (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I had a discussion with JamesF on IRC before i uploaded this image and his comment was and I quote "PMO doesn't have delegated Crown Copyright authority, so images Crown officers have actually taken themselves in the course of their duties are OGL. However, note that PMO occasionally puts put Press Association images on their social media feeds, which aren't Crown Copyright at all." , PMO in this case means Prime Minister's Office and as linked in the DR, this image is from their own website not from an outside source which itself is OGLv3, I just added a Higher Quality version of it...This isn't another MoD fiasco, don't make it one..--Stemoc 12:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Aziz Sancar copyvio photographs uploaded again

Aziz Sancar photographs have been picked up from other reputable sources over and over again by the same user. See [13]. This photograph was directly picked up from Koc Foundation magazine. The photograph's owner is the Koc Foundation, not Sultan Galiyev. EtienneDolet (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the cropped version that was missed, and issued a final warning. Revent (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Luchtfoto Harderwijk centrum.JPG

What to do with the repeated tagging as {{Low quality}} of a picture that definitely doesn't qualify as 'low quality'? Jcb (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and uploaded File:Luchtfoto Harderwijk centrum (edited).jpg and removed the tag. Everybody happy? —LX (talk, contribs) 16:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I am happy at least. Thank you! Jcb (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Franz Kolb.jpg: Copyvio?

The file is declared "own work", but the same image appears on this webpage.--Jkbw (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Same problem with File:Harbuttkc-238x300.jpg. --Jkbw (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The latter shows, without doubt, William Harbutt — a "competitor" — of Franz Kolb. --Túrelio (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, likely. Yet as it stands we don't have enough licensing information to host the file. Materialscientist (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Image needing attention for content sourcing and appearance

The points of wind rotor sail image (File:Points of sail for rotorships.JPG) contains textual information solely citing a web page that is dead and cannot be traced, and so it constitutes publication of original editor material on WP (i.e., constitutes OR).

This is rampant at WP -- use of image presentation as a way of presenting original ideas and concepts, without having to submit to more highly scrutinized principles applied to OR in text.

In this case it is improper, and may be illegal (if the appropriated untraceable material was copyrighted, or otherwise protected IP). The fact that the editor, whose issues are legion, redraws the image he saw in the source does not eliminate the originality of the original material, or need for it to be recognized.

Please identify a path by which this might be rectified -- the material sourced, and the source propagated to any article in which the image appears in.

Otherwise, in this editor's perspective, the handwritten material in the image should be removed, entirely. (It should have be typed into the textual information here at Wikimedia Commons, originally, so it is fully legible to all readers, and thereafter could appear in figure legends.) The editor's presenting it as handwritten text in the image is both problematic in terms of its legibility, but also sets a poor precedent for image style, content, and clarity.

Thank you for your consideration, and attention to this issue. 50.232.187.66 15:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair use picture moved to Commons

Please close this Commons:Deletion requests/File:VIT Campus 1.jpg, there are fair use picture moved to Commons, see source--Motopark (talk) 04:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done. Materialscientist (talk) 04:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Question

How would I post of quote of my own making? uspset11@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnonut (talk • contribs) 02:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Bnonut:
Read our guide at Commons:First steps.
Regards, Alan (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

corrupted picture

File:Lapin sotilassoittokunnan tunnus.jpg seems to be corrupted, if you are same opinion, please delete--Motopark (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Deleted by Denniss. Alan (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

My UP

Can someone with enough rights please remove my UserPage. I'd love to see the one of Meta. Thanks in advance,  Klaas `Z4␟` V:  15:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Deleted by Túrelio. Alan (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Image:Hirst.jpg

Hi, this image, that I uploaded has been overwritten by another user and then redirected to File:Hirst grip.jpg. This can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Hirst&oldid=77275671 from the caption where my original photo image of "Headingley scoreboard tribute on 16 August 2006" has been overwritten by an altogether different image. This can also be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Hirst&oldid=77275671#/media/File:Hirst_grip.jpg. Can an admin retrieve my original image, please? Just Chilling (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You uploaded it on en.wiki in 2006. In 2013 it was moved, on en.wiki, to en:File:Scoreboard tribute to George Herbert Hirst.jpg. Materialscientist (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Brilliant, thanks! Just Chilling (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Copy confusion

Hi all, I was moving a few files by Basel University Library (talk · contribs) but it seems the file moving script has been changing the format of the files from .tif to .tiff even though the target file name field mentions it as .tif. Please take a look and let me know if it's the fault of the script or the rename template. User contributions Example move which performs false move . Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The gadget loads the extension from mime data. In this case it is image/tiff, so this.mimeFileExtension is set to tiff near line 948, and replace the extension in {{Rename}} template near line 1461 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of old versions of a document

Hello, how can I delete old versions of an uploaded document; I just want to keep the original and the newest version. I was going to write a deletion proposal, but I don not want a full deletion. Shall I write a exact version-deletion-proposal or is there another procedure? PS: Maybe you can program a version-deletion option. Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smiles :( :\ :o :() (talk • contribs) 17:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Smiles :( :\ :o :(): Just ask an admin (or all of us, here). Revent (talk) 02:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
@Smiles :( :\ :o :(): You also asked here a similar question. Please don't post on multiple noticeboards :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Sullivan Strumpf uploads

Apologies if this is the wrong place but I don't usually use Wikimedia Commons. I just talked to T Albert about this upload and he hasn't given permission for it be released with a Creative Commons licence. It appears the User:Rosie2016 has uploaded a lot of valuable artwork from the Sullivan Strumpf gallery without realising the ramifications of the CC licence, or understanding who owns the rights. I attempted to contact them on enWP but received no reply (though they kept editing afterwards). I am concerned about these works being copied to other sites so I'm wondering if they could be deleted fairly quickly. Thanks! Haminoon (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Sorted out by Hedwig. Revent (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Unblocking User:Selenium_user

Hello,

This is Antoine Musso, I am contracting for Wikimedia to maintain the continuous integration infrastructure. We have a job that exercise UploadWizard on commons every six hours and alerts the Multimedia WMF team whenever something goes wrong. That lets the WMF engineering folks be aware of any disruption in UploadWizard.

The test suite uses the User:Selenium user which has been blocked earlier today log entries

  • 08:59, 14 October 2015 Multichill (talk | contribs) blocked Selenium user (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (autoblock disabled) (Unauthorized bot uploading junk)

That causes the monitoring probe to fail and put us at risk of not noticing that UploadWizard is broken somehow.

Reference: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T115465

I would need an admin to unblock the user so we can restore the monitoring system. We can take follow up actions on the Phabricator task to make sure the bot adheres to whatever policy commons might have for bot. Potentially renaming the account to Selenium user (WMF) and granting it a bot flag. But that is a bit of work.

Thanks

13:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashar (talk • contribs) 13:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I just unblocked the user per https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T115465 . Can you please use {{Test upload}} on the file (white in the information template) and we should probably rename the account to User:Selenium user (WMF QA bot) per suggestion on AN. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much, that restored the probe. I am repurposing the task to implement what you have suggested. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T115465 . Sorry for the trouble Hashar (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
FYI renaming the bot was raised 11 days ago at Commons:Village_pump#Why_do_6.25_of_all_Commons_images_get_uploaded_with_no_text.3F. Please add a responsible named operator or set of named operators for the bot account, rather than a department. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Please move

\User:P999\mygalls01 to right place--Motopark (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

User rights

Can an admin please add the same user rights of INeverCry to Jeff the Obscure? Under this new alternate I uploaded File:Feral mother cat and kittens.JPG; this can be compared with File:Female feral cat feeding.JPG, which I uploaded last year under my INeverCry account. The Camera/EXIF is the same, the location for both is my front yard, and the mother cat pictured is clearly the same cat. I've properly labeled this new account as an alternate. I'm trying to get my main account password reset (Jalexander-WMF is on family vacation, so I certainly don't want him to hurry and take time away from his family to deal with my little issue), but I'd like to be able to do some license reviews and whatnot in the meantime. Thanks for your time. Jeff 19:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done The cat matches. The kittens are cute :). Good to see you back. Natuur12 (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Natuur12: . Good to see you. Can you add confirmed to this account? It seems I still have an edit limit and can't edit semi-protected pages (User talk:INeverCry still says "view source" and that I'm not an "established user"). I'm only two days old... Jeff 19:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
As you wish. Natuur12 (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time old friend. I appreciate it. Using VisualFileChange with an edit rate limit can be brutal, and having to enter a Captcha to do rotation requests isn't much fun either... Jeff 19:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Be patient ... Alan (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Alan. Yesterday I did a mass permission tagging with VisualFileChange: I had to wait through two minutes of freeze and enter 6 or 7 Captchas! And this with a 13 or 14 image load. There's a limit to patience... Jeff 20:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Please close this DR

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vellore Montage.jpg, thanks--Motopark (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Alan (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
There are 2 source pictures missing in this montage--Motopark (talk) 06:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done I closed the request differently. Taivo (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hclee

I have a feeling some of the recent uploads by Hclee (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  are out-of-process re-uploads of previously deleted uploads by the same user. Could someone with the right to view deleted files have a quick look? Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 06:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

To elaborate, Tineye suggests that File:六房天上聖母.jpg (log) may be the same image as File:六房媽.jpg and File:六房媽2011-07-15.jpg. Any merit to that? If so, I think a block is warranted, considering the "final" warning back in 2011. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Please delete

SitBuddy user removed my speedy.--Motopark (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Deleted --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Created again.--Motopark (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted & Blocked. Thanks for reporting. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Please move to right place

Benutzer:AchimStump--Motopark (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done At User:AchimStump, left a note. Revent (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Source vs Syntaxhighlight

Hello. Can I please talk with an administrator that can run a bot on commons? I'd like to convince him to do something. Thank you, IKhitron (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Many administrators are listening here. You should give us some more information about what you want to have done. Shalom Shabbat. --Achim (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Very well. The wiki tag <source> is deprecated. It was replaced by media wiki to <syntaxhighlight>. This is because "source" is also HTML tag (audio and video characteristics), and it can appear inside the code in wiki "source". For now both of the tags work, but they say the source will not work in some time. We run today a bot in our wiki to replace all the appearances. But there are about 2,000 apperances in namespace 6, all of them in commons. You use them in files descriptions (povray, matlab, latex and so on, see [14] for example). So I wanted to talk with bot programmer in commons and to convince him to write and to run the same bot. Thank you, IKhitron (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
And by the way, it's Shabbat Shalom IKhitron (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Will <source> be removed from mw? If yes, do you have a link to the bugreport on phabricator? Thanks. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, it will, but I can't find the report that you wanted and I saw once. You can see at least I'm not lying from the last line in mediawikiwiki:Extension:SyntaxHighlight GeSHi#Usage. IKhitron (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
It will happen almost for sure, but very likely not so soon. Such major changes will normally have lots of announcements / discussions on mailing lists and tech news before it go live. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! There are ~ 3000 affected pages here on commons. If needed i can run a script in the next days to fix this issue. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll be glad if you can do this. Thank you very much. By the way, it's a very big number. Maybe you have some scripts or subst templates or gadgets or buttons in editor or something that automatically adds the tag "source"? IKhitron (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
By the way again, you searched "source lang...", but it can be also "source inline lang..." and so on, so it should be <source, something, lang. And do not forget </source> in the end. Thanks again, IKhitron (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
If you change the regex to search only source then you get a few hunderts moor. But it isn't a lot imho (commons has millions of pages). :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Using grep on the dump of September 1st, I get 4569 hits. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I see. Somebody knows about the source of the source? My question above. Otherwise, it will be fixed and in a few days there will be hundreds others. IKhitron (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
It actually looks like quite a few are 'geocoding overlays', (like File:Tongeren - Gembloux.svg/overlay.kml) that are xml source code for files that overlay maps onto the terrain in Google Earth (see Commons:Geocoding/Overlay). These should be left alone, I think, since they aren't ever intended to be rendered by the server, and changing them would cause breakage. Revent (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: I saw your question in my IRC scroll, but I wan't around at the time. I was rather assuming that the 'source' tag in the kml files was actually a html/xml/kml tag, and not intended to actually be parsed as wiki markup... (that the .kml 'files' were actually kml files). Actually trying it out, though, it looks like the whole thing doesn't work anyhow... apparently DschwenBot was supposed to parse those pages to return the actual kml files, and is currently just returning empty files. (shrugs) Probably worth asking him about it before doing any large number of edits to them, but he appears to be out of pocket at the moment. Revent (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, @Revent: . What's wrong in replacing source by syntaxhighlight in kml files? It will give the same result. And to prevent future errors we should fix the instructions in Commons:Geocoding/Overlay. Why not? IKhitron (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
@IKhitron: It looks like I may have been a little mistaken about how that tool is supposed to work... it's actually broken atm, apparently. The issue would have been if the 'syntaxhighlight' tag was included in the output kml file, since that's not actually an xml tag (kml is a subset of xml). It looks like that Dschwen's bot is actually supposed to interpret the wiki page and output a kml file, though... if that's what it actually does (when it's working) then the wiki markup won't be in the kml file anyhow, so it's actually a moot point. Can't tell for sure, because the bot is just returning empty files right now. Revent (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I see, @Revent: . Possibly, this bot should know about two options. IKhitron (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't, says the code. I've asked @Dschwen: --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
So, we'll need to make it to do. Until then, it's dangerous to change the tags. IKhitron (talk) 13:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Fixed. --Dschwen (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

No response to deletion request

Hi,

I put in a request to delete File:Bérlet - Budapesti Közlekedési Vállalat, 1962 február (1).tif about four weeks ago but received no response whatsoever. What am I doing wrong?

--Malatinszky (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Malatinszky: You didn't do anything wrong, we're dreadfully backed up. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of this one. --Malatinszky (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

"torchon immigrationniste"

Hi,

I would like (French speakers?) sysops begin to review this problem: [15] [16] related to User:Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick:

  1. naming a file "Calais - Siège de Nord Littoral, torchon-journal de désinformation.JPG"
  2. writing this description: "Siège de Nord Littoral, torchon/journal de désinformation, Calais, France.
  3. answering [17] that...

"Désinformation" means en:Disinformation ("Disinformation is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately"). "Torchon" in that context means "rag". "Pourtant, c'est bel et bien un torchon immigrationniste" can be translated by "Yet it is indeed an immigrationist rag".

From my side I ignored that WikiCommons could consist in a political tribune. For me again: it is a (serious) ethical drift.

Thank you by advance.

Best regards, --Benoît Prieur (d) 06:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This is clearly not acceptable. I deleted the redirect File:Calais - Siège de Nord Littoral, torchon-journal de désinformation.JPG. Thibaut120094 (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Sur Wikimedia Commons, les noms des fichiers comme leurs descriptions ne se doivent pas d'être neutres. Je suis depuis plus d'un an la situation dans cette partie là de la France, et il ne se passe pas un mois sans qu'on me fasse parvenir des articles très orientés pour ne pas dire partisans, voire différentes affaires, qui me montrent que les qualificatifs utilisés étaient parfaitement exacts. J'attends donc que l'on me prouve le contraire. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Old user talk page

Hi! For some reason, my old user talk page User talk:Xensyria wasn't moved when my account was renamed (first to User talk:Mjgilson and then to User talk:Yodin).

There's not much (a welcome template, and a reminder about a file I uploaded without categories – a good reminder for me), but rather than copy-pasting it to the new talk page, or just blanking it with a redirect, I was hoping if someone had a spare minute, they could history-merge the two articles, and leave a redirect to my current page.

Sorry to be a nuisance! Cheers. ‑‑YodinT 15:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done History is merged. You can merge content manually, if you wish. Ankry (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! :) ‑‑YodinT 17:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Account of "Mmcannis"

I see that I am still called in some places: "Mmcannis-commonswiki". Any chance of changing it to "Mmcannis", my name in Wikipedia? from "Michael McAnnis", User_talk:Mmcannis

@Mmcannis: You can edit the pages that refer to you under your old username, I guess, but it looks like it only occurs about 8 places. As far as the 11k-odd edits that are under "Mmcannis-commonswiki", it's AFAIK not possible to merge accounts yet, though meta:Help:Unified login claims it will be at some point. It'll probably be a Steward thing, tho. Revent (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion request

WMVE received a petition this morning to delete personal pictures, since this is the first time dealing with something like this we might need some help. The user is Mguevara, and for what I understand, she is the widow of the man in her files and no longer feels comfortable with their uploads being listed here (with the exception of this file linked on es.wiki). I'm not copying and pasting the formal request because has many personal stuff, but if more information is needed please let me know. Cheers --Oscar_. (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Oscar .: Hi,
We usually do not delete images, as the free licenses are irrevocable. However, in this case, most if not all images are out of scope anyway, so it could be possible. Just create a deletion request. I already deleted 2 files which were copyright violations. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, given the circumstances we could speedy delete them as a courtesy. They won't survive a DR anyways. More opinions? Natuur12 (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 Delete Courtesy deletion. Alan (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 Delete - Not one of those files is in scope IMO. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done OK fine. I deleted them all. Yann (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to all! --Oscar_. (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Admin backlog

Would someone put the Admin backlog tag for Deletion Nominations again please? We have piles of DNs to go through and as pointed out above by Malatinszky, some of these are over a month old - and simple. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I closed over 1000, we need more hands. The list never ends . Alan (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, we need moor active admins (imho we have enough admins, but a lot inactive). And we need a better server side system for copyvio scanning (scanning exif, filedescription, etc. of uploads). --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Added a admin-only WatchlistNotice. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Steinsplitter. Alan (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter How do we initiate "better server side" stuff? I'd be happy to agitate for those, but I am not able to code them. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: phab:T21565 and phab:T89252. This would be the first step (fixing both bugs). OTRS Permissions can be faked with this bugs - but WMF isn't fixing this for years. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Where's Fastily and INC when we need 'em? . To be serious, when I first became an admin in 2012 we had open DRs that were 6 months old. I'll try to keep my output down to 1000 or so DRs per month if possible... INeverCry 20:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Where's Fastily? Funny question. But if you want inflammatory questions about needed admins for work, here’s another: Where’s Fæ (once fitted with admin tools) when we need him? And another: What’s being done to reduce the shocking number of admins who do not use make use of their tools (except for the odd bullying and harassment, of course)? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
There are quite a few of us, myself and Fae included that would be glad to help if allowed to do so. Reguyla (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Reguyla: You're gonna get yourself in trouble with the folks at Wikipediocracy if you keep including yourself in sentences with their arch-nemesis. Ok, one of their arch-nemeses... And you said he should be an admin! {gasp}... Where's Zoloft or Greg when you need them? @Tuvalkin: Where's Fastily? What happened to me? I was part of that funny question too. And I thought you and I were amigos... INeverCry 07:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @INeverCry: , Yeah we're good and your probably right about WPO, they only recently released me from being blocked there as well. The trustees have more compassion and forgiveness than the ENWP community it seems. I honestly thought you were an admin again, didn't mean to exclude you and by all means add your name to that list as well. I think we both know there is zero chance of me being an admin here though. Too much bad blood from my days at ENWP still with the folks here that also edit there continuing to hound me. Just saying that there are folks willing to help and although I am no expert by any means on Commons like you and Fae, there is certainly a lot I (and others) can do to help as well. Reguyla (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
OK - thanks for the chuckles folks. Back on the idea of how we can try to automate some more of this process, the link to the two phabricators are great... now who do we know at WMF who might be willing to help out?
Additionally, I'd love it if we had a stop point on the upload where the system compared the images to the basic google search, and if any were found larger & older, provide a mechanism for the uploader to either explain, send OTRS right away, and/or back out of the transaction - no harm, no foul. Does anyone know who could code that, or would that be WMF as well? I'd be happy to do whatever it takes to try to get their attention. I've heard mailing boxes of cookies to the office with the request on top sometimes shakes old bug requests loose. Barring that, we could make an "attentive WMF Barnstar" or something. (note, some of the foregoing was intended as humor, please don't shoot the messenger) Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping Ellin Beltz, I am not an admin, but I will try to pitch in with a few comments on DRs this week. I think that is at least somewhat helpful -- I imagine that as an admin, you can work a little faster if you can see a bit of consensus when you first encounter a ticket, which might lighten the need to investigate details. Yes? -Pete F (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it would be a big help if users helped sort through the apparently "simple" ones and render opinion! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I can do that as well. Reguyla (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
If a file is an 'obvious' speedy that was instead sent to DR (the complaint was a dupe or obvious copyvio, for example) bumping the file to the other queue (by speedying it) is also helpful, and can be done by non-admins. Sometimes that's a huge part of the 'newest' queue. Revent (talk) 07:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Failed nomination

Please delete This page.Image nomination should be completed within this project, there is no need for a failed nomination.Thanks --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done.Thank you @Christian Ferrer and Tremonist:

File disappearance

Hm... I'm moving some categories and moved their content into the renamed ones. Whereas the contribution list shows correctly I moved the files in the correct category nonetheless the target category appears empty. Is happening to me only or have I stumbled in some bug? (see here for an example) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a severe delay in updating categories. See here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Not so empty categories

It's taking a long time for files to show up in new categories: Commons:Village_pump#Updating_a_category_it_takes_more_than_3:30_hours. Please be very careful deleting "empty categories" until this issue is resolved. I created Category:Yuliya Gippenreyter 30 minutes ago, and it still looks empty even though it has 4 files in it... INeverCry 22:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Noticed that as well, thought my temporary 3G connection was using a proxy or my browser wasn't clearing the cache but worked out that those were not the problem. Bidgee (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please correct

There are different info, deleted / kept in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ilmavoimien Esikunta.svg, my opinion are that this can be deleted--Motopark (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@JuTa:  ? Ankry (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Thx for the ping. Corrected that now. Intention was to keep both files as they are different. --JuTa 19:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Protection of "mega-transcluded" templates

Discussion of the recent breakage of the Commons categorization process has been covered generally on the Village Pump, the technical side continues on Phabricator:T116001 and has been mentioned here at #Not so empty categories. There is potential for improving how we handle or request changes to the most extremely highly transcluded templates. In this case a change to {{Information}} exposed problems with how backlog job queues are handled by operations. However, there are templates with even more transclusions, and there are currently 113 templates with over 1 million transclusions (thanks to Jarekt for highlighting the number), this is bound to increase as Commons itself continues to grow.

Is there an appetite to make sure mega-transcluded templates are either specially protected, or use an unmissable "red alert" style notice, so that any admin making changes is expected to take extra-special care to get community and technical feedback, or follow other specific community agreed steps before implementing changes? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is the Foundation running all jobs on the same jobserver? Why not running jobs on separate server and prioritize them better. I agree with you that commons continues to grow, but also Foundations's budget is continuing to grow. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Server configuration is more a question for the Phabricator discussion. It is not unreasonable for the community to agree to take special steps to limit changes on mega-transcluded templates, which ensures that changes are tested and if something goes wrong it may be possible to more quickly identify the cause and limit propagation of the disruption. It's not a question of the WMF telling us we need to do this, but what is the most logical way for the community to manage significant changes to our project structure. --Fæ (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Help needed to create a new license template

Re: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#BHL-no_known_restrictions, could someone with some experience in setting these up take a look?

I am currently batch uploading high quality book plates from the BHL archives, using a some interesting smart filtering. I am unsure exactly how many files this is likely to be, probably a lot considering how many books they have digitized in the archives. A sub-set of these are marked as 'no known restrictions' in the metadata, and there is no generic template to apply, but there are plenty of similar institution templates in use that do the same thing. --Fæ (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Please close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Captura de pantalla de Wine Internet Explorer.png

Could an admin speedy close (keep) this DR?

And another question more related to the Village Pump, is this file actually disputed? Where? --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done All the files are kept and they are not disputed. Taivo (talk) 08:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please close

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alliance Sud InfoDoc.jpg, thanks--Motopark (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done closed, deleted. Taivo (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Please close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Microsoft Edge.png

Could an admin speedy close this DR as Keep?

And since it is time to discuss the issue regarding the Wikipedia screenshots and de minimis, I cordially invite you to discuss in the Village Pump. Many admins have different opinions about if these screenshots are or not de minimis, so is important to get concensus before proceding the applying the Deletion Policy harder. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Alan (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Can I get some advice please?

A while back I noticed that Commons had a rather poor reproduction of an old map. It showed a small portion of the map and the colours were completely wrong. Following a trip to the British Library I had an image of the complete map that showed the original colours much better. I've cleaned up the image by removing excess borders and rotated it. Commons:Overwriting existing files permits overwriting to provide a higher resolution version of the original image and for colour correction. I've another user citing the same policy insisting we have to use the original washed out version and I should upload the file to a different name. I took the discussion to talk but it seems to be going nowhere. The image concerned is here. I've fallen foul of differences between commons and en.wikipedia so am asking for advice as to how to proceed. WCMemail 08:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

OK done so, what can be done about the misleading description, it doesn't show the original map as claimed? WCMemail 10:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand the first description (before you change it) : "the first official argentine map, partially reproduced, after the Boundary Treaty of 1881" describes rather well the subject... --Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
@Wee Curry Monster: Your new image is quite distinctly different... it does not meet the requirements of COM:OVERWRITE. Nothing in that says that we much 'use' the inferior image... usages can be changed. It says that we don't get rid of the old one. Even if they were effectively 'identical', COM:UPLOADWAR explicitly states "If another editor thinks that a change is not an improvement (even if the editor making the change thinks it minor), the change can be reverted. Once a change has been reverted, the new image should be uploaded under a new filename (unless the reverting editor explicitly or implicitly agrees to the contested change)."
Your version does indeed seem 'better' to me, and other projects might decide to use it instead, but it was 'obviously' not the same, or even similar. Such a large change could easily break the 'context' in which the image was being used, and we should give people the choice (by having them both). Revent (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
In reply to @Christian Ferrer: this file claims to be a copy of the original map but has been rather crudely manipulated. In the original version, the Falkland Islands and the Beagle Channel Islands are shown as foreign territory. In the manipulated version, the colours have been changed so that the Falkland Islands and mainland match. You can see where some of the original colour remains on the mainland (I guess that was a bit tricky to change) and the colours don't match the map key. In addition, all of the meta informaation was stripped out of the file. Whilst it claims to be a copy of the original map, it isn't, its been photoshopped. I am concerned that users may use it in good faith as a reproduction of the original.
@Revent: Thank you for the policy guidance. WCMemail 10:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
@Wee Curry Monster: You should mark it with {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}}, and discuss the issue on it's talk page. Revent (talk) 11:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
OK done, thanks for the help guys. WCMemail 11:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello gentlemen. WCM has taken the bold step of adding his own judgment and opinions in the {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}} tag. Can we all agree that we can avoid an edit war if we just limit ourselves to a blank tag? (or at least a consensuated one). Thanks. Langus-TxT (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of the tag Langus was to initiate a talk page discussion and its there for an editor to express their concerns. Its not intended to be permanent, nor is it really appropriate for you to insist upon your preferred wording, thereby overwriting the concerns I raised. However, as it has served its function and we have quite a healthy debate going I will avoid the edit war by simply not joining you. Move along nothing to see here. WCMemail 22:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Langus-TxT (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

mass renaming needed

Sorry but I give wrong names to some pictures, please rename with next

Thanks.--Motopark (talk) 08:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, You can certainly get the renaming rights. See Commons:Requests for rights‎. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I correct those later today, this case can be closed--Motopark (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Please close this DR

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by CotswoldGiant, thanks--Motopark (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done by Mattbuck. Yann (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Possibly trick deletion requests

User:Djvarley points out on the Help desk that some recent deletion requests look like they may just be a trap to get people to click to a dangerous site. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Londonnorthcentre-swontario.PNG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flamborough-glanbrook.png. They point to a page which both his and my security software indicate as "dangerous". Neither of us is willing even to click through to see what's there. I suspect these are not legitimate DRs and that they are just a trick to get someone to click through. If someone has an appropriately quarantined machine or browser, please check into this and work out how we should proceed. - Jmabel ! talk 18:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I don’t think there’s any malware there; AFAICT the site is just lacking a current certificate. (Disclaimer: I have no computer-security expertise.) The page linked in both DRs is itself a copy of en:Kitchener—Waterloo (electoral district) and the map shown there is not actually the same as either nominee, but a member of the same electoral-district location-map series with a common base. The source-text of the mirror page shows the image displayed there to come from a wikimedia.org server.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Merhabaviki (talk · contribs) and Erisedstar30259 (talk · contribs) who appear to be socks have been adding obvious copyright violation photographs. Many of them are from prominent news sites. Some of these photographs have already been deleted quite some time ago on a copyvio basis already but have be reuploaded. EtienneDolet (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked the first account, warned the second. Files tagged and/or deleted. Yann (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for license review

Hello, I uploaded File:Balloons in the sky with Wikipedia 5 million celebration message.png which is a derivative of File:Balloons in the sky.jpg. The latter was originally posted to Flickr. Would an administrator please verify that I have noted the license correctly in the new file, make any necessary adjustments to the license notes, and then manually mark the Flicker copyright status review as complete? Thank you. --Pine✉ 07:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, it's unnecessary to do a separate flickr review for DW of images already reviewed. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Use {{Derived from}} instead. M★Zaplotnik (edits) 08:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hollywood Branded flickr account

I was going to mark this image below--the uploader (now banned) incorrectly marked his own upload--until I got a message that the source flickr account (Hollywood Branded) is blacklisted:

There is another identical image here:

Should someone file a DR on these remaining images from this flickr account? Its not many. A reply about This Flickr Account by Rodrigolopes shows that these images are likely all copy vios and should be deleted, I think...but perhaps an Admin can settle this issue. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

All deleted many more. --Denniss (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

¿copyright?

En los metadatos de este archivo pone que tiene copyright desde 2012, la imagen fue subida en abril de 2013. Es probable que que sí que haya sido el propietario de los derechos de autor quien la haya subido ¿no debería de haber enviado un email a OTRS dando su permiso para su utilización? ¿Habría que eliminar o modificar ese parámetro de los metadatos? --Jcfidy (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hola @Jcfidy:
Según el principio de precaución que rige en Wikimedia Commons, y ante el más que dudoso permiso/conformidad del autor, es necesario verificar mediante un permiso vía OTRS. La probabilidad que pueda ser el mismo autor quien subiera en su momento no ofrece más que eso, una probabilidad. Ante todo debemos ser cautelosos y protegernos de posibles reclamaciones, incluyendo las judiciales (que las hay), y tener la constancia que todo lo alojado en Commons cumpla con la directriz base y lema de este proyecto: libre.
Como bien indicas procedo a marcar la foto como necesaria de permiso OTRS.
Un saludo. Alan (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

"Portrait of Crazy Horse" Is of One of His Killers: Outrageous!

Tried to edit the text, but part of it remains.

Check it out:

File:Chief Crazy Horse.jpg

And here's the page of Little Big Man himself: en:Little_Big_Man

I hope someone knows how to deal with this. It is shameful for Wikipedia, and outrageous if you know anything at all about how Crazy Horse died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14ba:20f8:600:38bd:248a:90cc:c29f (talk • contribs) 2015-10-28T14:57:12‎ (UTC)

I replaced all uses with much better File:Little Big Man.jpg --Jarekt (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 Comment Just as a note, the misidentification of this image as Sitting Bull on the internet long predates it being on Commons (not that it's really an excuse). Just to verify, I looked at an image of Sitting Bull on the memory.loc.gov website, and this indeed is not him. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.39879/ Revent (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Disregard, derp. I need a nap, obviously. Revent (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

deletion

This user User:Raouf youssef had uploaded a dozen files scans of private data (e.g., medical reports). I deleted them. Is that necessarily to go further ? Anthere (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Contact an oversighter ? (ping Avraham, odder, PierreSelim, Rama, Raymond, Tiptoety) Thibaut120094 (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Working on it. Raymond 18:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Thibaut120094 and Anthere: Done. Raymond 18:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Raymond: Anthere (talk)
Thanks @Raymond: --PierreSelim (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

FSU Images

Hi there is a bot that is marking many images pertaining to Florida State for deletion. Many of these images come from two user accounts that don't seem to be very active and wouldn't be able to show permissions for them even though they uploaded them themselves. How can we slow this done and give the users more time to respond?--SeminoleNation (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

What is the name of the bot? Speaking to the user who runs it would usually be the first thing to do. INeverCry 02:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Please delete

User:Перчук Леонид Львович user removed my speedy after warning--Motopark (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Thibaut120094 (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

en.wp's 5 million milestone logos need protection

Hi, could a sysop please upload protect File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en_5m_articles_135_white.png and File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en_5m_articles_270_white.png? They're going to be used as the logo for a few days. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 01:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

How about this picture

File:Combo2.jpg, I can find from flicker same picture [18], which one are original and what we shall do with commons version--Motopark (talk) 07:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It was uploaded here one day after it was uploaded to Flickr. The image at Flickr has an acceptable license, and it's properly licensed and attributed here, so I don't think there's anything we need to do. Nyttend (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
1. "Which one are original"?: Both seem to have equal status. It would be reasonable to assume that the author posted the image directly from his original, independently to flickr and to Commons. The image is a good combination of two photographs taken at a few seconds of interval on 20 January 2007. The image is tagged on flickr as uploaded on 22 January 2007 and it was uploaded to Commons on 23 January 2007.
2. "What we shall do with Commons version"?: Maybe nothing special. It would seem exaggerated to take extreme measures for this 2007 file that looks legitimate. Maybe leave a message to the uploader on the en:wp user talk page (last contrib. in May 2014), or contact the flickr user through flickr (last contrib. circa December 2014) or through this mail, and suggest to him that it might be useful for easier verification if he mentioned his Wikimedia username on his flick account. Just remove the statement added today on the Commons description page by someone who says that the image is available on flickr "under the stated license" (version 2.5). It's under version 2.0 there. The presence of version 2.5 on Commons makes the difference unimportant in practice, but still the statement is not exact. If useful, a note could say that the image is available on flickr under version 2.0.
-- Asclepias (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Info: Which one are original? Both files are exactly the same (checksum matches), and the license at Flickr is valid (I passed the License Review). So, what is your actual question? --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
This is exact info to me, now we close this case--Motopark (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User account

A friend of mine opened a user account on Commons, but the account was not created on the other wikis. The user name is now reserved and he cannot create a Wikipedia account under that user name. How can I help him resolve this problem ? GastelEtzwane (talk) 11:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

All accounts are valid for all wikimedia wikis, he must use his user account to identify on other wikis and account will be automatically created. For problems ask help to stewards. Alan (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Just did it for him, the other account was created. GastelEtzwane (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!!

Greetings! Today would be a great day to send The Missing U Invisible Barnstar to any admins you've missing seeing lately! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I like 'Happy Reformation Day!' better heh. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 18:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

South Korea categories

Can anyone review the Seoul categories movements, please? They contain hundreds of files. It seems to me that not all transfers are in line with the naming policy, but I'm not sure. Thanks in advance, Wieralee (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikicambui recreating deleted content previously uploaded by Luís Carlos Silva Eiras?

I suspect that some of the recent uploads by Wikicambui are out of process recreations of previously deleted content, which was formerly uploaded by Luís Carlos Silva Eiras. Could someone with the ability to review deleted content and/or checkusers look into this? Specifically, I believe that File:LazaroSilvaHarleyDavidson.jpg may be the same as File:LázaroSilvaHarleyDavidson.jpg and that File:PassaporteinternoLS.jpg may be the same as the previously deleted file under the same name, which were both deleted as part of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Luís Carlos Silva Eiras. Wikicambui also seems to have the same difficulties understanding the terms "own work" "copyright holder" and "author" as Luís Carlos Silva Eiras. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@LX: Thanks for reporting.
Looking at the new account's history, he has also reuploaded many (many, many) other files that were deleted by consensus, specifically, at least half of the files deleted as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Wikicambui have been recreated. I'm plowing down the list right now, redeleting, and will no doubt be indeffing him once I get done. Revent (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Misuse of 2 accounts

See here... INeverCry 07:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Dodgy image

Hi commons,

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/CARe_Medical_College.jpeg is obviously this image: http://www.caremc.edu.bd/images/cmc_out.jpg

Please do whatever needs to be done.

Thanks. --Shirt58 (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Shirt58: Speedied it as an obvious copyvio. The enwiki article that used it was already deleted as a copyright violation of the same source. Not only was it previously published on that website, but it's fairly obviously an image of an 'architectural rendering', and not an actual photograph. Looking at the area in Street View (which their website makes a matter of a couple of clicks) makes it very obvious that it's not a photograph, as the design of the actual building does not match this image. Revent (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@Revent: thank you! I'm not very familar with commons: is this the right place for reporting this sort of stuff, or should I put a template on the image's talk page? (You come across this sort of thing sometimes doing WP speedy deletions.) --Shirt58 (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@Shirt58: There are various 'speedy' templates like {{Copyvio}}, {{Duplicate}}, and the generic {{Speedy}}, but just mentioning it here or on the Copyright VP isn't really a problem. It'll get handled whichever way... doing it 'properly' (with the gadget) is really only a big deal it's it's something that needs discussion (the gadget that gives you a 'nominate for deletion' toolbox button should be on by default). Revent (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Please delete

File:Selfie Shoes Wow.Gif see history--Motopark (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Done by Hedwig in W. Alan (talk) 07:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

please restore

User:Stefano Benzi original version, delete last versions--Motopark (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Also protected. Alan (talk) 09:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

protection fails

See history of picture File:Lapin Lennosto.svg why new account has uploaded new version--Motopark (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Account is not new; it was created on 27 October 2015. I think, admin-only protection will be overprotection in this case, however. Ankry (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Original photo instead of cropped one

I would like to have original image of the File:Hillsong Live Australia, Zagreb 2.jpg. The cropped one is also fine but let it be separate. --Janezdrilc (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Just click on the preview image below File history. --Achim (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

But the file from history can't be used in wikis. --Janezdrilc (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Then click on "revert" ("vrni") to the left of the original image. And, if you want, you can upload the cropped image under another filename, or you can let the other user do it. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Please delete (2)

File:Wow gif.gif deleted plenty of times--Motopark (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done The uploader is globally locked. I tagged him/her as sockpuppet of Fritella and deleted all his/her uploads. Taivo (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Today the same file was re-uploaded as File:SelfieShoes wow.gif by another sock puppet. -- Ies (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Augen33/Images/ImplantierbareKontaktlinsen to uploaders own gallery area--Motopark (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done --Krd 12:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

File:MBTA 3103 at Watertown Loop, September 1965.jpg & File:CTA 6-car 4000 series Ravenswood A train near Grand Ave. Station, Chicago, IL om February 2, 1968 (22233419570).jpg

Roger Puta did not take this image. This makes this image a flickrwash or a derivative...does it not since we don't know if Mr Puta license this image freely? Just curious, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

As I commented here, Mackensen and I have been tagging these as {{PD-heirs}}. Either Roger Puta (who took these photographs) or Mel Finzer (who he appears to have willed them to, and thus owns the copyright) has decided that these are PD, and authorized Marty Bernard to scan and publish them as such. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
That seems like a reasonable assertion. Given that all three involved parties are apparently average people (not organisations or famous people), we don't have a way to confirm this, so assuming good faith and accuracy on the uploader's part is fundamentally the same as assuming good faith and accuracy on the part of Flickr uploaders who claim that their uploads are their own works. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Project scope

Hello.See here.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

If it is a central heterochromia (or similar) yes. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

duplication

Hello.There is a duplication in templates:

Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Block reason

Hi, Elcobbola is claiming here that admins can't use the bock reason Abusing muntiple accounts whiteout a RFCU. I have seen a lot of admins bocking possible socks in that way and i can't remember any complain. Thoughts? Best :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It would be unnessesary bureaucratic process if there is only behavioral evidence and xwiki evidence which cannot be accessed by commons CU. Also, knowledgable abusers can easily bypass CU, we must accept this. — regards, Revi 16:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I did use that rationale several times, notably for accounts from User:Teles/Angola Facebook Case. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
First, CU could have been run on a different Wikimedia project. Second, often the edits conmform with the duck test (often a user does not even try to hide the block evasion and is very open that they are blocked).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
If I block somebody, then I try to find the most appropriate reason from standard reasons to explain my block. If "abusing multiple accounts" is most similar to why I blocked the user, then I choose that. This reason has no tag "should be used only by checkusers" and in my opinion it's totally valid to use it without checkuser. Taivo (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
How about creating a standard blockreason for blocks regarding socks preformed by admins and one preformed by CU's? Natuur12 (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I see nothing broken so far, so no need for any fix. --Krd 10:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Nothing broken is not a reason to stop improving ;). If it is really an improvement is not up to me to say. Natuur12 (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I think you are right Steinsplitter, and the position of Elcobbola is way too bureaucratic. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree, this has been abused before by a few admins without going through the proper procedure...admins are not usually qualified to know if they are dealing with socks without providing proof, either get an RFCU done or request a CU directly via mail or IRC...don't block a user as a sock without valid proof, that would be an abuse of your rights...--Stemoc 12:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't we have the duck test? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
We do but please ignore his ad nauseam. Natuur12 (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Something such as "Abusing multiple accounts; confirmed by checkuser" would be useful for other projects: blocks here are often relevant to potential blocks elsewhere, due to SUL. That's not to say that we should require checkuser for a block; it's just a nice service to other projects. Nyttend (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Note that we are all humans and checkuser also can be wrong. Especially, if their opinion is Likely or Possible. Working as an OTRS agent I encountered few times that accounts blocked as sockpuppets were, in fact, operated by different persons. Also note, that using multiple accounts is not always abusing multiple accounts: an alternate account may be used legitimately on commons even if blocked on another project as a sockpuppet. Ankry (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Mass-revert tool?

Special:Contributions/Another day, another username is obviously Russavia, and most of the edits are problematic, whether attempting to get Category:Photographs by the Republic of Korea Armed Forces (check needed) deleted (it's a maintenance category) or removing Russavia's category for self-uploads; see this one for both problems in one. Is there a way to mass-rollback the account's edits? I didn't feel like clicking [rollback: 1 edit] on every single edit if it can be skipped. Nyttend (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

importScriptURI('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
INeverCry 04:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
INC, you should probably stay away from Rusasavia drama and Nyttend, basically, his "socks" usually add images to his cat which needs checking..best to check and fix them then trying to "revert" his legitimate edits...they are not vandalism and rollbacks tools should ONLY be used for reverting vandalism, nothing more..--Stemoc 04:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Rollback disagrees, saying "The use of rollback should normally be limited to combating vandalism, but the tool can also be used to rollback your own mistaken edits or the clearly mistaken edits of another user." Emphasis is mine. In this case, a banned editor is removing a useful category from a collection of images, and rollback is much faster than anything else for putting the category back when it never should have been removed in the first place. INeverCry, what do I do? I added it to User:Nyttend/common.js, but I'm not seeing any little popups saying "Run this script" or anything, even on the contributions page in question. Maybe I don't know what to look for, or what page to look at, or maybe it goes on a different js page? Nyttend (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend there is nothing problematic in my edits. Category:Photographs by the Republic of Korea Armed Forces (check needed) should be deleted, as it is 1) empty and 2) it allows for Category:Photographs by the Korean Ministry of Defense (check needed) to be moved there without issue. As to delete my own user maintenance categories, there is no requirement for user categories on Commons. Furthermore, my edits also add relevant categories and other information. As Stemoc mentions, rollback should only be used for vandalism, not for legitimate edits. KORMND2015 (talk) 04:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend I see you are already acting in a disruptive manner by deciding to rollback non-vandalism edits as was mentioned by Stemoc. Would you care to explain how this is anything but disruptive -- i.e. clear categories have been added, and a check needed category was removed -- only to be rollbacked by you. I am putting you on notice, that I will continue to revert ALL disruptive edits by yourself. Sadrdrunk (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this is not the place for it but earlier today I felt bullied by Nyttend on my talk page when he, without knowing me accused me of abusing Wikipedia for nationalistic reasons after I tried to rename a category in an attempt of standardising the name in line with Commons' naming conventions. Maybe Nyttend is one of the best Wikipedia administrators and he is having a bad day now.... but if not he should consider not wanting to be a Wikipedia administrator anymore. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Yulia Romero, this is, of course, the editor formerly known as Russavia. Nyttend should be COM:MELLOW by not accusing people of nationalistic editing, perhaps a solution to the issue you raise is using Kharkov/Kharkiv in file descriptions -- both spellings are valid and in widespread use. Other than that, the problem you are having with Nyttend isn't quite relevant right here, right now. Good luck hey Sadrdrunk (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_54&oldid=178882645"