Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 56

User:Example renamed by the SUL renaming process

Could an admin rename back User:Example~commonswiki to User:Example to make sense of its main purpose? --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Amitie 10g: Unfortunately, bureaucrats (not admins) can no longer rename users. I think the solution for this is to delete the global account, which will unattach the accounts attached, and then rename User:Example~commonswiki to User:Example locally, then if someone has access to User:Example~commonswiki, then they should go to Special:MergeAccount to merge all the accounts that are named "Example". The deletion of the global account and renaming of users locally can only be done by stewards. So please request at m:SRUC. Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 01:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• The account seems to be an alternative account for User:Liangent (see logs on the home wiki). Can't he just recreate the account here and allow us to move back all of the pages? --Stefan2 (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Stefan2: Liangent cannot recreate the account, as it is prevented by SUL (or Example's global account). Note that this is a complicated request. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 02:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Do we need an account with this name in the first place? In my opinion, it's enough if we have a user page ( any talk pages and subpages if needed). CentralAuth prevents everyone except Liangent from creating an account with this name, so having a user page without an account shouldn't be problematic. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I created this user by logging in here. Liangent (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I moved the pages to the right spot. As far as I can tell, that should fix the problems and no account renames are needed. All the best, Taketa (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to you all. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 11:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, problem solved. Then, should be the User and User talk page fully protected? --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Dr Ajeenkya D Y Patil.jpg

Picture deleted before and uploader differs from new one, could somebody check are same picture than old one--Motopark (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

File with the same name (2 different) was deleted 4 times in the past. Current photo is not the same, but depicted person – I'm not sure. Taivo (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The first and second uploads were versions of this image, and the third and fourth were versions of this image. Nyttend (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

BLP image overwrites anti-vandalism report

After 2 months offline, User:Fæ/BLP overwrites is available again. If you would like to help monitor damaging vandalism, it's worth adding to your watchlist. For administrators that do not remember the history, this report was created after an outcry about unlawfully obtained sexual images of celebrities were being used to overwrite their portraits on Commons, and consequently showing up on Wikipedia without the biographies there being flagged that this was a change, and so being missed by the normal vandal patrollers.

For anyone interested in the background for the outage, the related ticket is Phab:T123108, created after running the query every 5 minutes suddenly caused a huge backlog (as the report was stable for over a year, this was presumably due to an upstream problem). --Fæ (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way: Adverting here the previousely deleted files report. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Test account for blocking

Those of you who are en:wp admins may be familiar with en:User:ThisIsaTest, which is meant for blocking practice. As far as I can tell, we didn't have a comparable thing set up here, so I've created User:Blocking subject for this purpose. As I've noted there, please be careful to reblock the user when you're done testing. Nyttend (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Barneyuj7

Another Jermboy sock, needs to be blocked. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This uploader

This uploader is uploading non-free copyrighted album covers. The uploader also typed in a fake flickrpass here and here Does an Admin have a solution to this problem? --Leoboudv (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done I blocked HybridHorseman for a month and will delete all his uploads. Taivo (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thank You Taivo. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Pictures with watermarks

Please have a look at the uploads of Hn.rajabian, some of them have watermarks: Special:Contributions/Hn.rajabian. thanks Queryzo (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

here another with watermark. Queryzo (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I notified the user with {{No watermarks}} --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Multiple images with no provenance claimed to be of famous figures in the American Old West

A certain user has uploaded multiple purported images of well-known figures from the American Old West to Wikimedia Commons. Some of them appear ludicrously unlike authenticated images of known provenance. This person has the username of OSMOND PHILLIPS, and claims to be employed by the Phillips Collection, an assembly of 200 "photographs purchased from an antique store in Oklahoma nearly 20 years ago by happenstance". He states "I AM THE AGENT AND PROMOTER OF THIS COLLECTION. I HAVE A SIGNED CONTRACT.", but as far as I can see, has produced no proof of such.

One of the photos, a very poor quality image of John Tunstall, which appears to be obviously inauthentic and has no provenance, is not present in the collection it supposedly came from. It is being used to illustrate the namesake article. An image of superior quality and known provenance is available, and already present in the John Tunstall article.

This inferior quality image, with no associated provenance other than the unsupported claims of a pseudonymous user, does not appear in the online collection that the uploader claims to be employed by, but yet has produced no proof to authenticate it. A search of the website and its collection for "John Tunstall" or "Tunstall" yields no results. In fact, the website even has a section called, "The Phillips Collection, Proof without Provenance", which brings to mind the comments of the mysterious "OSMOND PHILLIPS". Carlstak (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It is still unclear, what you are requesting. If removing from articles, then Commons is not a proper place, this must be done locally. If deletion of the photos, then please create a deletion request and explain the situation there. If blocking the user, then at moment I am against, please start from warning (he does not have any). Also Osmond Phillips should be mentioned about this thread on his talkpage. Taivo (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC))

I've created Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Tunstall retouched.jpg because it's an exceptional situation. I'm thinking of nominating others after this first one concludes. Nyttend (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have created Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Tunstall_wiki.JPG and followed the required procedures. I would like to do a mass deletion, but after perusing user OSMOND PHILLIPS' contributions, it appears that all, or at least most of them, should be deleted, and there are quite a few. It appears that this user has uploaded many apparently random photos of purported figures from the American Old West that do not even resemble the persons they are claimed to be images of. That is why I made my initial inquiry here, because I believe this is something that an administrator at Wikimedia Commons should handle. Carlstak (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Current Phillips Collection Resume has been added to my user page. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:OSMOND_PHILLIPS Phillips Collections agent contract was sent to Wiki user Btphelps in November 2015. He can vouch for the contract. More information soon. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

While the filer claims no provenance, he has also provided nothing to prove these images are inauthentic. Deletion, let alone his desire for mass-deletion, seems drastic, especially in light of the fact we have nothing substantive from the filer supporting his claims based on original research. Winkelvi (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. The burden of proof is on the uploader who makes extraordinary claims of authenticity for these images that seem to have materialized out of nowhere with no previously established provenance, as well as promising to provide documentation with no delivery of same. The original research is being practiced by the uploader and his or her defender here. Carlstak (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

"Bollocks/Nonsense"? I seriously don't understand why you are so hostile about this issue or why you think it's such a horrible thing to have this image in any article, Carlstak. I get that the photo doesn't meet your standards for provenance, however, the individual who uploaded it originally, Osmond Phillips, has taken steps to show he is who he says he is and that the photo has been identified as being Tunstall (did you see his post above?). All you've done so far to support your personal belief it is not authentic is to say, "is obviously not of John Tunstall, who had a distinct Cupid's bow upper lip, quite unlike the thicker, less finely cut one of the other gentleman. Article doesn't need two photos of him anyway." (link here). That is the best you've been able to do: provide original research and personal opinion in addition to "I don't like it". Precisely what are your credentials to make such a pronouncement that we should believe your opinion (which is personal, not based on any proven fact or research) to be enough to delete the photos? Winkelvi (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that the so-called Phillips Collection of Texas Escapes Online is not authenticated, and this fact is even alluded to on that site in the essay, "The Phillips Collection, Proof without Provenance" by Cathleen Briley, already linked to above. She says, "Of course, questions immediately began to rise about the authenticity of the photos in the collection. What are the chances of someone finding a massive collection of extremely rare photos of incredibly famous people all at once? We grappled with that question ourselves. It seems so unbelievable.[Indeed!] So, how can we have proof without provenance? Even though we have no record of previous ownership, the proof is in the pictures." Now, that's self-published original research, as well as patent nonsense, if I ever saw it. Carlstak (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The John Tunstall photograph is from the Phillips Collection. It was originally uploaded to Wiki with the correct license of Public Domain. It is a circa 1875 albumen print photograph. Susan Stevenson is a researcher for the top Billy the Kid author, Frederick Nolan. Susan agrees that it is a photograph of John Tunstall. Other people including professionals who have experience in identifying photographs also agree. An email from Susan Stevenson can be arranged. Susan is also a descendant of the Dolan and Fritz families from The Lincoln County War. She agrees we have photographs of her ancestors in the Phillips collection. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I added the extra photograph to John Tunstall and Billy the Kids page because of the rarity and importance of these photographs. The Tunstall photo is closer to his age when he was murdered. These photographs are important to history. As far as "An image of superior quality and known provenance is available, and already present in the John Tunstall article" there are eleven photos of Abraham Lincoln plus several illustrations and paintings, seven photos of Wyatt Earp, etc. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The Phillips Collection resume with support from professionals, including Susan Stevenson a known researcher for the top Billy the Kid author Frederick Nolan can be seen here. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:OSMOND_PHILLIPS OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This "support" is very weak:

1. The Discovery Channel is not a reliable source, nor is someone "interested in doing a Billy The Kid film"

2. "Researcher" is a meaningless title, anyone off the street can call themselves a researcher.

3. The president of a historical society is not necessarily an authority, and film or TV producer is not an accreditation of expertise in historical photos.

4. Texas Escapes.com editor/owner John Troesser has an obvious conflict of interest.

5. Arcadia Publishing and the History Press are not reliable sources. They are part of the same publishing house, and both solicit submissions by self-publishers of original research.

6. Wild West magazine is not a reliable source, neither is True West magazine, which is "interested in doing a future article on Billy the Kid after seeing our photo". (Well, there's a pecuniary incentive to upload these photos).

7. "User contributor BtPhelps said Phillips Collection may warrant its own page pending more credibility." (This is really grasping for straws).

8. American Cowboy magazine, Historynet.com, and New Mexico Magazine are not reliable sources.

9. "Descendants that agree we have their family photos." (Claimant descendants are notoriously unreliable.) Carlstak (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Since when are historynet.com and The Discovery Channel not reliable sources, Carlstak? Wild West Magazine and True West Magazine, also not reliable sources according to... whom? Winkelvi (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Comparison of known images of Wyatt Earp to the Phillips collection images

I oppose the wholesale deletion of all of the images contributed by OSMOND PHILLIPS. While I had my initial doubts as well, Phillips has shown sufficient evidence (like the photo at right) that I have concluded the images are valid. I have noticed that PHILLIPS has received a number of challenges from other editors about these images, and I believe they should be retained.

As to the sources challenged by Carlstak, American Cowboy, Wild West, and True West magazines are reliable sources. I have no idea on what basis he challenges their reliability. They are the mainstream publications about the American Old West. Carlstak, who has made many valuable contributions to articles related to Spain, is not a member of the Old West Wikiproject, and he may not be aware of these magazine's reliability. While the Discovery Channel in and of itself may not be a reliable source, the documentary about the Billy the Kid photo, which provides credible testimony from multiple experts in the field, is a reliable source.

Of course Historynet.com is a reliable source. Editors have used it as a source for articles on Wikipedia hundreds if not thousands of times, as a quick search using AWB amply demonstrates. (The results displayed in AWB are the plaintext results; many, many others are buried in references.) Carlstak, do you have an axe to grind by attempting to deny such an obviously valid source?

The method for proving the provenance of photos has changed. It used to be the same as for paintings: a proven "chain of custody" all the way back to the creator. But with the addition of modern forensic analysis, it's now possible to analyze an image and establish its authenticity even if the provenance is broken, as is the case with the documentary produced on the Billy the Kid playing croquet photograph. A large number of mainstream media outlets (for example, Foxnews, National Geographic, The Guardian, CNN) have reported on the new methods used to authenticate this specific photo, which after a year of analysis by multiple experts -- not merely the producer of the Discovery Channel documentary -- has been accepted as a valid image of the outlaw now worth an estimated $5 million. It's my understanding that PHILLLIPS has put the photos he's submitted to Commons through the same rigorous vetting process. In any case, I can see extremely obvious similarities between some of the images he has submitted when compared to those whose original provenance has been proven using the old fashioned chain of custody methodologies. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, btphelps, thanks for your reply. No, I do not have an axe to grind. I must say that I'm afraid I shot from the hip concerning the points you raise. I am from an old settler family of Texas that came there with Stephen Austin, and I grew up (partly) on the High South Plains. My father had a collection of magazines about the Old West given him by a friend, and I spent many hours perusing them when I was a kid (I'm talking about more than fifty years ago). In retrospect, they seem very cheesy and sensationalist in my memory. I could swear that Wild West (!) and True West magazines were among them, I don't know if they are the same entities as the present ones with those names, or if they failed and the names were taken by new publications. In any case, they were the farthest things from being scholarly sources imaginable, with lurid stories and wildly improbable illustrations and grainy photographs. "American Cowboy" sounded familiar, so I lumped it in there with those. I should have investigated further.

As for Historynet.com, when I looked at the website, which looks generally classy and well done, and saw the ads for Wild West magazine and some of the other titles like "Ten Incredible Air Rescues", "Was Rommel a Fraud?", and "Is Trump History's Newest Patriot King?", I assumed it was more of the same sensationalist style. These just don't sound very scholarly to my ears. I don't have AWB in my toolkit, so I couldn't check it that way.

Also, I don't equate "mainstream media outlets", especially like Fox News (an ever-flowing fount of misinformation and misdirection) or even National Geographic these days (their TV productions are often laughable and obviously slanted to exploiting popular taste to increase revenue) with academic respectability. In fact, I'm surprised that you do. Admittedly, I have no expertise in the history of the American Old West, and I am not a member of the Old West Wikiproject, but many of the photos supposedly from the so-called "Phillips Collection" (a name which I believe might have been deliberately chosen to cause confusion with the other well-known and eminently respectable Phillips Collection) are nevertheless contestable. Carlstak (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you don't feel you have an axe to grind in regard to this issue, Carlstak. It would be greatly appreciated if your comments, as well as the tone in which you present them, would reflect that no-axe-to-grind feeling from here on out. Winkelvi (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 Comment "No original research" is a Wikipedia thing. On Commons, we do plenty of original research, and that's fine. Whether you want to use a picture in a Wikipedia article is up to the contributors there. Anyway, this is the wrong place, and there is no admin action needed right now. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Carlstak, that's a great story about the pile of magazines you read when you were a kid in Texas. I'm of about the same generation, and I remember the pulp magazines of that day. And you got me there, FoxNews has an obvious conservative slant to their reporting, but at least they are obvious about it, unlike some other mainstream media that have a liberal bias and don't own it, for example, Slate.com. I also agree that the NatGeo Channel (which I no longer watch) has cost the National Geographic magazine some of its credibility. But so it goes with a lot of mainstream media with the pandering to the lowest possible intellect. I merely cited these outlets among the many who reported on the image of Billy the Kid playing croquet as a legitimate, newly authenticated Old West image -- proven not by the old school methods of provenance and chain of ownership -- but by forensics. Which is exactly what OSMOND PHILLIPS is attempting to do. He's definitely bucking a lot of history. Many traditionalists in the Old West corral resist his upsetting the wagon, I surmise in part because as the images in Phillips Old West Collection are proven to be valid, it means that the scarcity of the images they own is decreased, which decreases their value.

I agree, the Phillips Collection of Old West images is unfortunately named and is easily confused with the Phillips Collection Art Museum. I understand that the name for the "Phillips Collection" of Old West images refers to the supposed provenance of the several photographic albums as having been assembled by the former oil company magnate, Frank Phillips, who formed Phillips Petroleum in June 1917. The current owners of the albums found photos of Mr. Phillips or his family mixed into the collection. The owners of the Old West images ought to do something about their name for the collection, IMO.

In a number of cases when you compare the newly found Phillips Old West Collection images to well-known and previously accepted images of Old West individuals, there is an obvious similarity that I perceive to be indisputable. By way of example, see these two images of Johnny Behan, both on the English Wikipedia, which I don't know how to display here on Commons (feel free to fix my links if you know how):

• Behan (Phillips Collection)
• Behan (Public Domain)

The Phillips Old West Collection image of Behan is to my mind obviously of the same person. If that is true, you can infer that other images in the Phillips Old West Collection are also valid. Therefore it would be very hasty to throw the babies out with the bathwater and summarily delete all of the images OSMOND PHILLIPS has added.

I agree with OSMOND PHILLIPS that there is some real history to be found in these images. The rare picture of Tunstall appears to be among them. I suggest we retain the image.

Referring to the entire series of images added by PHILLIPS, we need to avoid a "he said - she said" argument, or base discussion on personal opinion. It's impossible to validate an image based on one person's opinion of the image. Let's identify the core of the dispute about the images the OSMOND PHILLIPS has added to Commons. I believe the dispute is two-fold:

• Are the forensic methods he has applied to the images valid?
• Is Commons willing to accept his statements that the images have been subjected to a degree of scrutiny that supports their validity?

What's the best course moving forward? Commons editors are really in the middle of a much wider disputation among Old West aficionados and desperadoes about the validity of these images. I suggest these steps:

• Take a wait and see approach and let the Old West experts shoot it out among themselves in real life.
• Add a disclaimer to the images uploaded by PHILLIPS, something like, "This image is believed to be of the individual named. It is subject to further forensic analysis by outside experts."
• Captions for the PHILLIPS images could for now contain similar phrasing, for example, "... believed to be XXX...".

We can then make plans to revisit these images in a year or 18 months and see what's been resolved by the real-world Cowboys about their authenticity, and decide whether to retain the disclaimer or dispose of it. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered reply, btphelps, I get your point about the controversy caused by "the image of Billy the Kid playing croquet as a legitimate, newly authenticated Old West image -- [being] proven not by the old school methods of provenance and chain of ownership -- but by forensics." Like you, I thought that was an interesting development in the field when I read about it.

I'm confused, though, when on the one hand you use phrases like "...is to my mind obviously of the same person. If that is true, you can infer that other images in the Phillips Old West Collection are also valid" and "there is an obvious similarity that I perceive to be indisputable", but then on the other you say, "we need to avoid... basing discussion on personal opinion. It's impossible to validate an image based on one person's opinion of the image". I agree with this sentiment, but it seems that you are practicing what you advise me not to.

Anyway, I think you're on the right track when you say let the experts "shoot it out". My six-shooter won't get me far against their Gatling guns, although I may be able to come up with the results of some "dynamite" research about these sources later. I still think the images should be deleted, however, until either an authenticated provenance or forensic results are produced. I haven't seen them anywhere. Carlstak (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Carlstak, confusion is the name of the game when it comes to authenticating Old West photographs. It does look like I was saying one thing and then the opposite. I THINK what I am saying is that there are instances where the similarity between images in the Phillips Old West Collection and known public domain is startlingly obvious and on which many individuals can agree. In other words, it's not just one person's opinion. If we can agree that this similarity exists for some of the images, then by extension it's possible for that to be true for other images in the collection. The legitimacy of some of the images offers credibility to the overall Phillips Old West Collection. On top of that, PHILLIPS has apparently involved real experts in authenticating the images using forensic analysis of the physical specimen (i.e., the photo itself) and of the subject.

Carlstak, you appear to be asking PHILLIPS to provide "an authenticated provenance or forensic results." "Provenance", in the sense that is applied to works of art, which is "a record of ownership of a work of art or an antique, used as a guide to authenticity or quality", does not apply to these photographs. If we want PHILLIPS to offer "forensic results", what level of "proof" will be acceptable? Who's to say which expert's opinion is legitimate? Are we going to evaluate each of the experts and their testimony for every one of 94 images he's uploaded?

PHILLIPS apparently feels confident that these images are the Real McCoy. Given his inexperience with Wikipedia, and based on the interactions I've had with him, I don't believe he's not trying to hornswoggle everyone. PHILLIPS, I'd guess that when you initially learned about these Old West photos, you must have been skeptical. Can you describe for everyone the process you went through to satisfy yourself that these images are legitimate? Help us believe, if you can. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

btphelps, first, I'm sure you meant "I don't believe he's trying to hornswoggle everyone" (I didn't want to change your words myself). My friend, if we concede that "there are instances where the similarity between images in the Phillips Old West Collection and known public domain is startlingly obvious and on which many individuals can agree.... it's not just one person's opinion. If we can agree that this similarity exists for some of the images, then by extension it's possible for that to be true for other images in the collection...", then why wouldn't the converse hold true?

That is, if some editors feel that there are discrepancies, and it appears that others besides me do, then why can't we by the same principal agree that "there are instances where the dissimilarity between images in the Phillips Old West Collection and those known in the public domain is obvious, and if we can agree that this dissimilarity exists for some of the images, then by extension it's possible for that to be true for other images in the collection."

If someone like PHILLIPS bases their whole case for establishing the authenticity of images with no provenance on "forensic results", then it's not unreasonable to expect that person to show some of these results so that others can draw their conclusions from the proffered evidence and come to an informed opinion. Carlstak (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Question: do any of these photos have original markings on them to indicate the name of the subject or the name and location of the photographer? Or are they just unlabeled photos that have been compared to extant photos that do have identification, and have been classified based on such eyeball comparisons? Reading the Phillips Collection introduction and provenance pages, I don't see any mention of the former sort of evidence. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The funny, or not-so-funny, thing is that user OSMOND PHILLIPS has invited everyone to examine these images for comparison with others, but seems to be affronted when some people do just that and draw the conclusion that some of them do not seem to be of the same person, or even resemble them. Carlstak (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We how have an OTRS ticket for these images (Template:OTRS ticket), but the images themselves still all appear to include inadequate author, date, and source information, and no evidence of the uploader's right to release the images under any given license. I have asked the uploader to provide this information, though I am doubtful of its eventual verifiable authentic appearance. The Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle means the burden of proof falls on the uploader for these things, and while the English Wikipedia may have different policies with regard to image inclusion in its articles, these images have been uploaded to Commons, not Wikipedia, under the assumption that they are not perhaps available as fair use images but are in fact freely licensed for use on ANY Wikipedia anywhere in the universe— that seems to suggest that Commons is the first and really only place that licensing, copyright, and authorship of such images should be discussed and verified (as has been proposed), and that no discussion of the images need take place (nor should) on the English Wikipedia (or any other). While we may do plenty of original research here on Commons, that does not mean we allow images with inaccurate or critical unverified information to be hosted. Are these images likely pre-1923? Probably. Am I a professional in assessing the dates of photo image creation? Not exactly. Should any editor have to be in order to question these dates? I would argue that they do not (other editors might disagree, leading us back to the principle mentioned above). If we accept at face value that all of the images are pre-1923, then source and authorship information becomes pretty irrelevant, however. The images should still have this information, but its "requirement" component gets dropped if they are old enough to be in the public domain. KDS4444 (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I have received a email from a permissions administrator. I will be happy to provide the photography stamps and their years of business. Most of the photos do have photography stamps. These are all old photos consisting of Tintypes [1859-98], Cabinet Cards [1866-1899], CDV's [1860-1892], Albumen prints[1855-late 1890's] and one Daguerreotype [1841-1858]. Thank you all, and even the doubters for putting this collection to the test and giving me this time to submit my information. It will not take long as we have already researched the photography stamps. Evidence shows this collection was collected from the late 1890's to the early 1930's. The same way a museum would have collected artifacts or a private buyer with the financial means. I will also be submitting our check list here of all the ways we research a photograph to help identify the person. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend did a good job removing all of the photos from the Phillips Collection from there Wiki pages. I thought we were discussing their credibility. Can someone just target ones work and vandalize it? Am I allowed to remove all of Nyttend's work? We are not in school anymore. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

For example, The Dalton Gang, Nyttend and other users are going against professionals. These photos have been confirmed by a Dalton descendant Yvonne Hurt and the Dalton Museum in Coffeyville, Kansas. The museum in Meade Kansas, The Dalton Hideout, is interested in seeing the photos. What credentials do these users have to say that the professionals and family members are wrong? Please post your credentials. I posted the collections credentials of professional and family support here. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:OSMOND_PHILLIPS I may be adding to the resume each week as these photos are being accepted by other professionals and family descendants. We do not submit any photo that hasn't been thoroughly researched. It would hurt the credibility of the other photos if we make mistakes. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I have been considering this business for several hours now and have come to this conclusion: all that should matter, as far as Commons is concerned, is whether or not these particular images are in the public domain. What the images are titled, who is supposedly in them, who took them, who owns the copyright, etc. can be considered irrelevant in the face of public domain status. This is already the case with many "very old" paintings for which we have no original named author— it just doesn't matter once it is old enough, and nothing claimed by the uploader with regard to the factual accuracy of the images has any bearing (at all) on the ability of Commons to host them. I could upload an image I made of a rectangle, put it in the public domain with a CC0 license, and call it "George Washington Crossing the Delaware" and there would be no grounds for deleting the image based on its "authenticity" or [ridiculous] claim of whom it depicts. That would be an issue only at the English Wikipedia and then only if I tried to modify an article there by including said rectangle and claiming it was Mr. Washington on a boat. If it was subsequently removed, I could initiate a Request for Comment on the talk page of the article inviting other editors to consider the authenticity of my rectangle and to assess its provenience. But if Mr. Phillips' statement with regard the the age of the images is to be believed (and I see no reason why it should not) then I think this conversation here on Commons should probably be considered over and the images summarily retained. I hope this allows us to steer this very long conversation to an end very soon, yes? KDS4444 (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

There is an ANI discussion on en:wp apparently proposing that PHILLIPS be blocked. That discussion relies in part on the assertion that the images they've uploaded here on Commons are invalid. PHILLIPS has stated in The Phillips Collection, Proof without Provenance that the photos have no provenance but that proof of their authenticity is being established.

The substance of the discussion here ought not to be about old school provenance, as long required by museums and art collectors. That is a given fact about these images. But are Commons editors are willing to allow evidence of modern forensic methods that are being used to determine the authenticity of these photos whose origins cannot be proven using traditional methods.

For example, experts in the fields of forensic photographic analysis have after a year-long analysis concluded that a photograph found in a thrift store, without ANY traditional provenance, is of Billy the Kid and is genuine. PHILLIPS is running into the same disbelief here that experts initially treated their images with. These experts appear to be changing their opinion. Apparently PHILLIPS is engaged in an effort to supply similar evidence for the photos they've uploaded.

I suggest we orient our discussion not on the merits of these particular images, but on the larger issues:

• Supposing that PHILLIPS can provide satisfactory evidence that the images are pre-1923, do they belong on Commons?

• What forensic evidence and expert evidence constitutes an acceptable level of "proof" of the images' authenticity?

PHILLIPS began contributing to WP on July 1, 2015 and Commons on September 14, 2015. They are still a relatively new editor. They apparently have some expertise in the area of Old West images. Unlike some of us on WP, they may not check WP daily for messages. They may not have the time on any given day to spend an hour or two replying to these challenging queries. I suggest allowing PHILLIPS a couple of days to provide information about the photographer's marks and related forensic information as requested. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for section-editing

OSMOND, over at en:wp, I enforce en:wp policy. Just as discussions there have no authority here, discussions here have no authority there; discuss it there, or I'm willing to chat privately (i.e. at your talk page or mine) about that over here, but it shouldn't be clogging up this discussion. The problem here is that you persistently insist that these images are in the public domain, even though (1) your website says that they're taken from somewhere with no provenance — we demand provenance to enforce copyright compliance, because if nothing else, they could have been published after 1923 and renewed — and (2) you insist that we respect the statement you've posted on your userpage and elsewhere here on Commons, despite providing no evidence for it. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog — how am I supposed to know that the museum in Montgomery County has authenticated these? Have they announced this online or in the Coffeyville newspaper, a place that this can be checked independently? How am I supposed to know that your resume is accurate? Have you submitted an OTRS confirmation of this? (If you want to do that, but don't know how, I'll help you; it's not hard) I'm happy to work with you if you can back up your claims, but the more you make unfounded claims, the less that anyone should be trusting you. And finally, KDS4444, remember the scope issue — your little rectangle would need to be deleted here because there's no way it's going to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Images with no provenance and disputed origins are out of scope here because they're not going to be used by someone who knows what's going on ("what if that's actually Great-Great-Grandpa, who went to Colorado in 1876 and never wrote to Great-Great-Grandma?"), and the ignorant could easily use one without knowing of the problem, just as the profoundly ignorant could use a little rectangle thinking that it was somehow related to Washington. Nyttend (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

To Nyttend's useful points I'd just add that "provenance" here is "where we got them from". It does not necessarily mean a complete chain back to the original photographer, which is the conventional criterion for authentication. The copyright issues do need sorting, but I suggest that they probably are sortable. I also suggest that some of these images may actually be useful, though I would hope that their descriptions, and any use in Wikipedia, would prominently note their lack of a full chain of provenance and something about the evidence for their authenticity. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge, I appreciate your moderate tone and willingness to try to work with PHILLIPS. The images appear to have been published before 1923.

The question of the day is what will constitute satisfactory evidence of this for their use on Commons? For example, I know that many old photographs bear a photographer studio stamp, and research can show when that studio was in operation. Some are printed on a certain kind of paper in common use during specific periods of time. Would these be sufficient? -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend, Richard Keatinge, it should be noted that these images have apparently never been published before. PHILLIPS provided via OTRS a copy of the contract designating him is the legal representative for the owner of these images. WP policy allows owners to release their images to public domain. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

How do you know that they've never been published before? Without proper provenance, we cannot establish this. Moreover, PHILLIPS' copy has nothing to do with ownership of the copyright over these images: ownership of a physical copy of a work is distinct from ownership of the copyright. If these images are still under copyright, they're owned by the publishing company, the heirs of the author who published them, or whichever party to whom copyright has since been assigned by one of the previous two entities. Nyttend (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring the copyright issue entirely, and going to COM:SCOPE. Imagine that you have an old photo from 1876 (date picked randomly) that without information about authorship, but you know was never published, and you don't have a clue whom or what the photo depicts. You could legitimately upload it here (see {{PD-US-unpublished}}), as long as you're saying that the subject is unidentified (e.g. "1876 photo of an unidentified scene in Kansas", or "1876 portrait of an unidentified man from Kansas"), because someone might use it to depict 1870s photography techniques, for example. I'm leaning away from my DR nomination statement that these images are fundamentally out of scope, but (1) unqualified statements that these images depict so-and-so [both in the filename and the image description] are inappropriate, because we don't know; and (2) this issue is unrelated to copyright. Nyttend (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend, I agree, we don't want individuals or businesses uploading random files and claiming they found a new image of Billy the Kid or Wyatt Earp. This happens IRL a lot. I read someplace the Bob Boze Bell, the editor of True West magazine, gets lots of email from people who found a photo or two in great-grandpa's chest in the attic, and are now wildly hopeful that have found a new image of a famous outlaw. So allowing such users to post those images here claiming to be Doc Holliday or whoever would be disservice to all users.

PHILLIPS does not appear to be such someone who found a picture in their ancestor's attic, nor have they added a single image. According to their statements on en:wp ANI discussion, which you are aware of, they have engaged in considerable research and paid experts to render their opinion about these images. PHILLIPS states,

"The collection has not only Wyatt Earp, but nearly 70 photos of the people involved in the events surrounding the shootout at Tombstone and their family members. When it is noted how many photos the collection has of a historical person, and also the people closest to them, it increases the likelihood that the photos were collected directly from family members. Criticism has been directed at the collection as being just “look-alikes.” It would be nearly impossible to amass a collection of nearly 500 photos of people who LOOK EXACTLY like THE most famous outlaws and lawmen in Old West history, PLUS their wives, girlfriends, children, friends, sworn enemies, and government officials."

Nyttend, you are rightly suspicious of OSMOND PHILLIPS' claims about the individuals named in the images. In doubting what they claim, you have to infer what their motives may be. Why would someone post an image and claim it is of John Tunstall or other well-known Old West characters? Well, we can't read PHILLIPS mind, but we can look at the facts: They say they have hundreds of photos which include people whose identities are already well-known and established. They've apparently used the known people found in the multiple photographs of family members to narrow down the list of the possible identities of other individuals in those same images, and then paid professionals to authenticate the identify of the other people in those images. Why would someone go to so much trouble and expense and then upload these images to Commons and try to fool users?

If the images are of well-known characters of the Old West AND have been previously published, it's extremely likely they would be known. There is considerable interest in the field of Old West photographs. For example, the only known image (at the time) of Billy the Kid sold for $2.3 million in 2011. Based on the information supplied by PHILLIPS, it appears that they've put considerable effort and money into hiring forensic experts and authenticating the images. Someone who found a picture in the attic would lose little when the image is found to be a picture of Uncle Chester (or whomever). PHILLIPS on the other hand is at considerable risk if they wrongly and purposefully mis-identify images. The credibility of the Old West images in that collection would be damaged. It suggests that the time and trouble they have put into identifying the individuals in the photos using forensic analysis has some credibility.

I return to a suggestion I made earlier:

• Add a disclaimer to the images uploaded by PHILLIPS, something like, "This image is believed to be of the individual named. It may be subject to further forensic analysis by outside experts."
• Suggest that editors add to captions on EN:WP for the PHILLIPS images a similar phrasing, for example, "... believed to be XXX...".

Based on the information supplied by PHILLIPS, it appears the images are likely authentic and are theirs to place in Public Domain, which falls with COM:SCOPE. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the nub of this whole conversation the fact that the only information regarding an affirmation of the authenticity of the photos, and the correct identification of their subjects, is the information supplied by OSMOND PHILLIPS? Unless I've missed it, all we have is his or her say-so and avowals, but no actual documentation. Carlstak (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

For the last time, Btphelps, these images are not owned and by OSMOND PHILLIPS: read what I wrote, and stop wasting everyone's time with your words until you inform yourself on the workings of copyright and understand why these images, if still under copyright, are owned by someone other than OSMOD PHILLIPS. Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle demands that we delete images whose copyright status is uncertain, and the lack of history for these images means that we cannot exclude the possibility of publication in a copyrighted work after 1923. And yes, Carlstak, we have nothing beyond one user's unsubstantiated words, backed up by enablers. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Block my bot

Can an admin temporarily block User:BMacZeroBot? I noticed a few minor issues with its edits that I'd like to fix before it gets too far, and I won't be at home to stop it all day (time to add a remote shut-off...) BMacZero (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done. For unblocking add a note here :-). --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It's safe to unblock now. BMacZero (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Pinging blocking admin: @Steinsplitter: ★ Poké⁹⁵ 12:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Backlog again

Hiya Fellow Admins: We are getting piled up under old Deletion Nominations again. Could everyone take a few minutes and see if there's something they can close? @Steinsplitter: could you add that "backlog of deletion nominations" banner notice again? Thank you!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

MassMessage

Please someone send a MassMessage with this content to the talk pages of these users. It is to notify the participants of the Greek part of the European Science Photo Competition about the announcement of local winners. Thank you. -Geraki ^T_L^G 12:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Geraki: Which text schould be the == section header == ? --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: I have added it as == Ανακοίνωση νικητών Διαγωνισμού Επιστημονικής Φωτογραφίας 2015 στην Ελλάδα ==. -Geraki ^T_L^G 13:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done (156 pages) --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: I checked some of the pages and Special:Contributions/MediaWiki_message_delivery and it seems that only 18 messages were delivered. -Geraki ^T_L^G 17:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I sent out all. I filed a bugreport: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124441 --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Geraki: OK --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Commons' views on its users.jpg

Moved to COM:AN/U --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Helgi

Helgi (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes)

Please, make autopatrolled. Trusted user. --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

As a rough guideline, administrators usually require editors to have made more than 500 useful non-botlike edits, and to have been active in the last thirty days. Helgi slightly misses the number, but as she had no copyright problems for 2 years, I grant her the autopatroller tag. Taivo (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Reminder of the Lawsuit on Wikipedia and wikimedia..jpg

I don't know the background behind this but I'm presuming there's a no legal threats and service by uploading documents exemption here. See all the editor's uploads as they are all related to this alleged lawsuit. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, the description of File:Lawsuit on wiki.jpg (dupe of the above) states: «I am suing Wikipedia and Wikimedia. due to the deletion process. What a Fake. You all ether need to put it back up. Or I will have control of the the United States of America. and shut down every single State entity in the Nation.» Me thinks it’s a troll. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Nuked it and blocked the account. We are not going to waste our energy on someone who is obviously a troll. Thanks for reporting. Natuur12 (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It was quite interesting case, but indefinite block is a right decision, she was clearly not here to provide useful content. Taivo (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Gadgets-definition #Proposal Gadget-externalsearch.js

FYI ↔ User: Perhelion 11:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Upload issue

I am sure I am reporting this in the wrong place, but: I cannot seem to upload images. I click the "Upload file" link on the main page, am taken to Wikimedia Foundat, and told I have no account and must log in. Trying to log in tells me I have no account there. I assume this is just a glitch that needs fixing (not an intended change), but I see no "problem" warnings on any of the status pages. - Tim1965 (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

see phabricator:T124804 --Didym (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible harassment?

There's a conversation at the copyright noticeboard at Wikipedia over the image File:Pouting.jpeg. The person claims that the photo was taken in their home without their permission. The way the image looks kind of gives some credence to this since it's blurry, like he was gesturing for them to stop.

I'm concerned that this might have been created with the intent to harass this person because of the way it is titled and because it was added to facial recognition despite an IP trying to remove it. (It's been on the article since July 2015, roundabout.) The editor also has some vandalism-type posts like this one. The IP has been advised that they will almost certainly need to prove their identity, which may require that they take a picture of themselves.

I'm not sure how that would go. However I felt that it would be best to mention this here since there is a request and since the image is hosted on here, the discussion now needs to be in this area. I've posted to the article's talk page to ask that the image not be re-added until the discussion is over and to be honest, it's a fairly poor image to post in an article in general given how blurry the image is. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy now (see image for rationale). Edits have been done concurrently in response to the complaint on en-Wiki. GermanJoe (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Deleted, easily replaced image with doubts about permission. Basvb (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Please delete

Category:John Lopez, uploader seems to add text to category.--Motopark (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done and uploader blocked. --Hystrix (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

This DR

When this DR is concluded, I assume that a Commons Admin will examine all the evidence pro and con. I don't know if AGF applied to Commons as it does to Wikipedia. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: Long comment posted there. AGF applies to the 'intentions' of contributors, but not to copyright permissions. COM:EVID makes it pretty explicit... uploaders must provide evidence that they have the right to license any previously published image that is not demonstrably in the public domain. We have a responsibility to our reusers to ensure that licensing is correct, over and above any assumption, either through evidence that they can directly verify or through an OTRS ticket stating that we have done so. To be honest, even on Wikipedia, if a contributor added previously published text to an article, it would be (or at least, should be, though some enwiki admins are tbh clueless about copyright, unfortunately) removed as a copyright violation unless they can prove they had the right to license it under CC-BY-SA. Revent (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Revent about mentioning COM:OTRS for the image uploader. That is the best solution here indeed. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

User:OSX

This morning closing this DR, I found several web sites containing the nominated file. Some exemples directly linked with our file:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
  

There are other exemples of web sites, and there are also the web sites not referenced by google. When you delete the file here, you delete also the files there. One of the purpose of Wikimedia Commons is to provide free content for any use, this is not very professional from us, if I can say, to delete old content and it is also against our policies even if it is the uploader request. I suggest to my colleagues to delete very carefully the files nominated with the same rationale than the DR mentioned. And the other old files deleted with the same rationale should be undelete IMO. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

All the images I have nominated have been extremely low quality and this is in accordance with COM:Redundant. Many images were also in contravention of Commons:WikiProject Automobiles#Images, an adaption of WP:CARPIX. Template:Blurry also states that low quality files are eligible for deletion when replaced with higher quality equivalents. Wikimedia is not a repository of junk files, but should be a compendium of quality files where possible. When we have multiple files of the same topic in a category, curating this down to only show images of better quality is not a bad thing. Users should not have to sift through rubbish to find good images. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

No, in no way the images you nominated are extremely low quality. I already see better but the files are usable and used, if it is not Wikipedia, it is maybe on the Web Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. This photo below has the roof and rear-end cut off and has incorrect wheels. Hardly the definition of high quality, and has been replaced with other files within Category:Ford Fairlane (ZD).

• 

OSX (talk • contributions) 12:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The file is used on the Web, and to delete it will broke the links. It's all. And this is why we avoid to delete the old files, it's in our policies, and the lack of quality you talk about does not surpass the obvious usage of this kind of file on the Web. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Given the file has a replacement, we could point the redirect to another file. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

In summary, I believe the deletion of low quality files is supported fully by policy/convention:

• COM:Redundant: states that files may be deleted on the grounds of being "redundant" or "low quality".
• COM:NOTUSED: states that files may be deleted on the grounds of being "poor or mediocre quality" if "we already hold [files] covering the same subject".
• Commons:File redirects: states that redirects may be deployed to promote stability of links.
• Commons:WikiProject Automobiles#Images: encourages the use/upload of automobile images of high quality.

Thank you, OSX (talk • contributions) 23:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Note the word may - and if in the course of a DR it is found a file is in use, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of it being deleted. The fact that someone, somewhere, has found that picture useful is proof it is not so low quality as to have no educational value.

Also 2 of the 4 links above are irrelevant to the matter at hand. Wikiproject guidance to upload high quality images is great advice, but does not mean deleting stuff that is not high quality (a very different thing!). And redirects are not useful unless the pictures are actual duplicates. So not "this was a bad picture of a car, here's a good picture of the same model of car" but "this was a picture of a car, this is the SAME picture but at a better quality".

And there's more than two categories of images - high-quality and low-quality. Very good images images will have high resolution, composition etc (eg it could pass COM:QIC). Very low quality images have severe defects, such as being badly blurred, that make them unusable as an image of the subject. Plenty of images, such as the Ford Fairline pictured above fall between those two extremes. Its got issues (too tight a crop), but it is still useful as an image of the car. Better images may exist, but that one is not irredeemably bad.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

How bad does a photo have to be in your eyes? It seems that the answer is absolutely bloody awful if you think the Ford Fairlane photo is worth keeping, especially in light of the better files of the same car. Given the number of images I have proposed for deletion, only a small number have been kept (suggesting that the majority of admins take the view that this project ought not to keep junk). Have you got any policies to back up images not being deleted if used externally, or is this just how you personally operate?

COM:HOTLINK suggest that website operators hotlink at their own risk and does not support your assertion that hotlinked files wont be deleted. Also, why must we worry too much about external use? No one seems to blink when Wikipedia articles get deleted that may have links? Why is Commons different? I get that Commons is not Wikipedia, but the premise is valid—why is it okay to disrupt one form of external linking but not another? OSX (talk • contributions) 07:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The image is an adequate one to depict the car. Sure better ones can (and do) exist, but it is still usable to illustrate the car - that fact is true if we have no other photos of the car or ten million.

Commons is an image repository not an encyclopedia. I'm not concerned about hotlinking - I am concerned about breaking attribution links. ie If I use an image from Commons, I'd want to be able to prove I can freely use it. How can I if Commons has deleted it? If we do that, we are not being a very good repository.

Instead of just going for delete every time, I'd strongly suggest you use categories like Category:Low quality images of cats - that hides the rubbish, but doesn't cause any issues for re-users of our content. I am OK with deletion under certain circumstances, but when a file is in use no. Not now. Not ever.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

As one admin who has deleted such requests in the past, I'd like to add that I didn't imagine that these images are in external use. I suggest to no longer delete such nominations, and the approach low-quality-images-subcat sounds interesting. (And I agree that some of the latest nominations are not obviously low-quality at all.) --Krd 11:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

As for files in use, I reckon that this is often only the case because better photos were taken later and perhaps no Malayalam contributor noticed yet. However, Nilfanion makes a very good point about protecting re-users. If someone published a book, say, they can't update it and they would need the original page here. Sorry OSX! I think the overwhelming majority of your photos should be kept, maybe it would be better to check their usage in other projects and letting them linger in a low-quality subcategory. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 19:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Four light bulb photos with non-free revisions

The following four images have had new versions uploaded in order to avoid any copyright issues with packaging that was previously depicted:

• File:General electric G23 light bulb.JPG
• File:General Electric 40W light bulb.JPG
• File:Polish E27 25W light bulb.JPG
• File:Osram DULUX S 9W.JPG

As such, these images have non-free revisions that should probably be hidden. Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done Taivo (talk) 10:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories

I don't know how to deal with this issue: Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories isn't populated correctly for at least some months. There are 13 cats listed, in fact some hundred should show up there (to be seen comparing Category:Disambiguation). --Achim (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit: I just noticed that the missing categories are correctly assigned to Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories but are not shown there unless they are null-edited. This behaviour is imo not acceptable as the cat is useless this way. --Achim (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Special:Undelete/File:Luci_di_periferia.JPG

Please undelete the picture above, it's anything but a copyright violation. @Ellin Beltz: deleted a bunch of my uploads because of some meaningless copyvio tag added by the feet feticit vandal's. @Yann: already undeleted most of them but this one is still missing since I gave him this reference which didn't include the pict above. --Vituzzu (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Done but please fix the file discription since the atribution is incorrect. Natuur12 (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Weyermannshaus1.jpg

I have uploaded the above mentioned picture with the consent of the author (OTRS pending). However, he just informed me, that he doesn't want his address mentioned in the description of the picture. I edited the item accordingly, but of course the address remains visible in the history of the file. Is it possible to remove the history of the file? Thank you very much. --HansSnape (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done. I deleted the first two revisions in the page history. De728631 (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the aid. However, I notice that, in the table under "File history", the address is still visible in the field "Comments". I'm quiet new to the Commons, so I don't know, how to fix this. --HansSnape (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. --Túrelio (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --HansSnape (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Duplicates

Hello dear colleague administrators. I discovered, closing this dr, that when we delete an old duplicate, we must create a redirect to avoid broke hotlinks if the file is used on internet. Seeing the red links in the deleted contributions of Fry1989, I must be one of the alone to know that. Don't worry Fry1989, nothing against you, and nothing against my colleagues, I just discover this myself. But this rule must be applied IMO. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I want to say that I found the technique before I perceive it is described in our policy...Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Mass message delivery

Yesterday, User:MediaWiki message delivery was tasked to deliver the mass message to 2K users on Commons but until now the message sent to only 50 users. Please help resolve the issue. Here is the users-list and here's the message to be delivered. Thank you. --Saqib (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The list has a wrong format. This can't work. @Yann: Never ever send out a list multiple times, it will create a mess. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The format was fixed by Base. I sent it only once. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not 100% sure if Bases format works on local wikis. I fixed the userlist and send them out again. Messages are now queued. It might take a while to process all (jobqeue seems buy atm). --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Steinsplitter. --Saqib (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Just as a note, I am sure that my format works since it's not the first list I've formatted like this in here and the deliveries were successful in past. --Base (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Yann (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Steinsplitter: Its stopped again. Special:Contributions/MediaWiki_message_delivery. --Saqib (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

They are still queued. I suggest to file a bug on phabricator if they aren't processed after some hours. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Reported: phab:T125214 --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Note Users from the list who have already received the message have been removed Now waiting to see when mass message delivery will restart. --Saqib (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

As an aside, 2,000 users being direct messaged on Commons is a very large number compared to the number of active Commons contributors. If general WLM participants are being targeted rather than a more relevant group, this would probably have been better kept as a (passive) site notice. It feels like the intended scope of the list of participants is being stretched beyond its intended purpose, or what the people on it tacitly "signed up" for. --Fæ (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

1 --Krd 11:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

To be honest i agree with Fae (my personal view). We have a nice watchlist notification tool written by Rillke. Disclaimer: I just looked into the technical stuff here.--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Fæ : The user-lists contains people who participated in Wiki Loves Monuments Pakistan and Wiki Loves Earth Pakistan. The Wikipedia community in Pakistan is really small so we thought of gathering people at once place who in the past participated in WLM/WLE so that they could be reach-out for possible involvement in future Wikipedia outreach events being planned by Wikimedia Pakistan. --Saqib (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Saqib: I understand that, but I believe that the watchlist notification tool is more efficient and reliable than notifying them by their talk page. You can request for a watchlist notice at MediaWiki talk:WatchlistNotice. Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 12:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Pokéfan95: Your suggestion well noted but in this case, strong majority (98%) of users are not active on Commons. They just signup to participate in WLM/WLE and then gone away. How a watchlist notification will be useful enough? --Saqib (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Lists of project participants which are reused for mass messaging do need care. We would hope that when joining a project like WLM, it is made clear that those accounts are signing up for any related messaging, as it is a good thing in both their interests and the future of these projects. Saqib is obviously acting with these good intentions, but it is not clear there has been an opt-in process. If WLM/E Pakistan did indicate in some way to participants that they were opting in for related messages, then it would be reassuring if a link could be given to it.

I think that Saqib can legitimately run this mass message, it appears very close to the intent of the original project, but there is a learning point for how opt-ins and future sign-ups could be done in a way that reduces any concern that our mass messages look like a marketing list. Unfortunately I do not know of a guideline that covers best practice, but perhaps someone who was closer to WLM in past years knows better and can point to it. --Fæ (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Please delete

User:Manit Joura bollywood, uploader cretes again and removed deletion tag.--Motopark (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Omar Sharaf pictures

I have been cleaning up Wikipedia:Omar Sharaf on Wikipedia, about an Egyptian diplomat. There are a lot of pictures that the user, User:OMAZZA1925, has uploaded here, which they have tagged as "own work", but this is unlikely as some of them are official photographs. The user may be a family member or family friend, to have access to some of these photos, documents and information, so perhaps they do have permission for some of them so I don't want to just blitz all the photos with tags for deletion. Could an admin please help review the 18 uploads at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/OMAZZA1925? Thanks! Fences and windows (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Accessibilty for disabled users

Hello, I wanted to participate in photo themes and upload images to commons but I've got a brain injury and I can't understand the instructions/how to do it. PLEASE can you make it simpler? Drag and drop? Also I can't understand the different licenses. Sadly it's all WAY too complicated for me so I'm excluded.

What are your accessibilty rules please? I'll probably forget (bad memory problems) to check back here (and WHERE is this/how find it again? = any way of reminding, or none? Email?

Am I the only one who can't do this? I can drive, cook, do lots of things = I can't be! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthdoctorknows (talk • contribs) 20:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Truthdoctorknows! Since I've just linked to your username, you should receive a notification of this reply. By default, this notification will show up at the top of your screen when you visit Commons. You can also enable e-mail notifications in your preferences.

If there were a way to make the instructions simpler, we would have done that. We haven't complicated things for the fun of it. ;-) To make sure that Commons is a good source of free content, our licensing policy has to cover a lot of copyright-related topics. Those topics can sometimes be rather complicated because of the way copyright laws are written, and we cannot do anything about that. If you have trouble understanding how Commons:Licensing applies for a specific case, please ask at Commons:Help desk.

The Upload Wizard already supports drag and drop functionality for selecting files to upload.

As far as I know, we don't have any particular accessibility rules. I'm not sure if we have any active volunteers with competence in this area. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Are text in next userpage in scope

Are text in next userpage in scope User:Archives cantonales jurassiennes, can some admin give his opinion--Motopark (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_55#How_about_this_userpage. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for info--Motopark (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you -- ArCJ (talk)

Closing campaign

Hello everybody. I need assistance in closing the wikivacaciones2015 campaign. It was supposed to end yesterday, but for some reason it's still working. Thanks in advance! --Racso (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I just did a test. It seems that it's closed (it shows a "The contest has ended" message), but it still receives photos and marks them with both the contest template and category. What would be the correct way to proceed? --Racso (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Racso: You have to actually 'disable' it when it's over, by switching 'enabled' to 'false' on the configuration page (I just did so). The 'start' and 'end' times only control what is displayed, they don't actually turn it on and off. Revent (talk) 08:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: Thanks a lot for the help! --Racso (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Problem with File:Claudia-alvarez-dhpage.png

User declared file as "own work", bit it occurs here. --Jkbw (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Marked as copyvio, let's wait for the file to be deleted by an administrator. Thanks for reporting. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 03:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Upload of an uncategorized image

Could someone please delete the image: File:Les Mystères Agrégées.jpg uploaded to the Commons today by myself, Username:BrideofScience. I did not understand how to categorize the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrideofScience (talk • contribs) 01:31, 4 February 2016‎ (UTC)

 Done This is not a reason to delete anything, but ... uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Assistance needed

Category:Search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 in the southern Indian Ocean has been filled with some 150 images from this site which are all licensed under a CC-by-4.0. The files should be reviewed though and tagged with {{Licensereview}} because the uploader is not the copyright holder. I've started to add licence review templates but any help will be welcome. De728631 (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Users uploading PDFs with embedded content

There is a sockpuppeteer who has uploaded some PDFs with hidden content. These are easily visible, as they are PDFs with random file names and come in at dozens of megabytes. While the content appears to only be copyright violations (e-books and the like), it might be more malicious. In either case, I recommend deleting these files on sight.

Two users so far:

• Special:Contributions/Hdsajdsadsa
• Special:Contributions/Baklol125

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Kia cee'd - Policia Local de Gomera.JPG

Dear Admins,

Please feel free to remove the unfree license mark if you wish. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: DR opened. No visible (or findable in archives) evidence of compatible licensing, and the uploader has an extensive history of uploading unfree files. Revent (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• OK. Thank you. I will make a reply there. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

MediaWiki or server rejects deletion

When I try to delete userpage User:وحید باقراسکوئی (for being out of scope), the deletion is rejected with the following error message:

Request-URI Too Long

The requested URL's length exceeds the capacity limit for this server.

WTF. Any idea/solution? --Túrelio (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Page moving still works. If you retry does it work then?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Was likely caused by the google translation embedded as deletion reason --Denniss (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, so it was my fault. ;-) Good to know, and sorry about that. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/69 blocking archival

Would it be possible to exclude edits to COM:OTRSN archives (or, failing that, perhaps the whole Commons namespace) from this rule? It has, multiple times, blocked User:SpBot from archiving the noticeboard, so sections are removed but don't appear in the archives. This was reported in November by Euku, at Commons_talk:Abuse_filter#Report_by_Spbot_.28Special:AbuseFilter.2F69.29, but that page seems to languish. Storkk (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure if it is a good idea to remove the project namespace, but we can whitelist the bot if needed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

SpBot is now excluded. --Krd 17:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Krd and Steinsplitter... Out of curiosity, how granular are the controls? Is it possible to whitelist the bot just from the Commons namespace? That would probably be the best solution. Storkk (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

That is not necessary, we don't expect vandalism in other namespaces from SpBot. --Krd 17:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Understood... and just looking I see it would be conceptually pretty easy, but would greatly increase the reading difficulty of manually reading the Conditions clause, so is probably not the best idea. Anyway, cheers and thanks for the quick response! I think this section can now be considered resolved. Storkk (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Named paremeters do not work in {{PD-user-w}}: (Template loop detected...)

As you can see in the examples in {{PD-user-w}}, the recommended way of entering template parameters does not work. Could an admin fix this? --jdx ^Re: 10:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible image copyright violations

Could anyone look over Connor7617's uploads and see if any of them are copyright violations. I heavily suspect that they are an incarnation of Bwmoll3, who was blocked in July of 2014 on the English Wikipedia for massive amounts of copyright violations. Oddly enough, the thread above is what prompted me to look into Bwmoll's edits (my second edit was one of this user's files), when I discovered that Connor was essentially doing the same topic areas. Additionally, Bwmoll added a bunch of images on Wikipedia under false claims of fair use, so I suspect at least one of these will come up as being an issue, and I wanted to have another set of eyes on this going forward. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Images that need to be deleted (created by a multi-sock abuser whos active on Wikimedia and Wikipedia)

Hello,

I asked some time ago to indef block several socks who were already CU blocked on Wikipedia,[5] but who were still active here on Wikimedia. My request was immediately put to action back then. The further problem is however, that there are some really problematic maps, images, etc of this serial puppet abuser (whos really fond of image/map hoaxing) lingering forth here on Wikimedia, which he uses everytime he returns with new socks on Wikipedia. I know he can just upload more of them the next time he returns, but we cant support such extreme violation of integrity both here as well as on Wikimedia.

Here are the images that really need to be deleted from here (the most dire need, so to say);[6]-[7]-[8]-[9]

Thanks in advance, bests - LouisAragon (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Rev del of a personal attack needed

Can an admin hide this revision: [10]. INeverCry 04:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 04:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. INeverCry 04:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Namewaster picture

I was mildly tempted to nominate this for deletion, but I wanted to ask advice first. Right now the article for the term "wasted username" is up for deletion on the English Wikipedia. The image File:Screenshot of namewaster account on YouTube.png is currently on the article and was uploaded by Philmonte101.

My problem here is that ultimately we have a photograph that clearly identifies a user and the site, although the actual link to the account is not given. While the username appears to be abandoned and the person may not care that their username is being used in this manner, I'm just worried that this could be construed as harassment considering that the article establishes that the terms "wasted username" and "namewaster" are frequently used in a derogatory manner. FWIW, I don't think that this was Philmonte101's intent, but I don't think that this is the type of situation where a picture would really be a good idea.

Thoughts? Since the link is not given and I can't bring up an actual account by the name of pudding, it's unlikely that people would be able to go directly to this user's page if the article is kept on Wikipedia, but there's still the issue that this is apparently a screenshot of an actual account. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I think, that it is impossible to use that image for harassment. Nothing is known about who the "pudding" is. Taivo (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm just sort of gun shy since we've had some complaints about stuff like this in the past. It's just that I'm really not comfortable with the idea that someone took a screen shot of someone's YouTube account and uploaded it to illustrate a word that is (according to the article) frequently used as a derogatory term. I don't have the html link, but there is potentially enough here to where someone more familiar with YouTube could possibly find the account in question. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to tell you but that's paranoia; bogus. This account was long since deleted. The person who created it abandoned it in 2005. The person who created the account has 99.9999999% likely forgotten about the account. https://www.youtube.com/pudding This is the proof that "pudding" doesn't exist anymore, but clearly existed back then. Wouldn't it make more sense to keep the picture until the user themselves, in the 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 -billions of zeros- 1%, actually complains about it? Philmonte101 (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Batch file rename

Hello—I could use some help with a batch file rename. There are about 100 new files in Category:Bernie Sanders presidential campaign kickoff, May 2015 with the name structure "Sanders presidential campaign kickoff, 2016 Bernie Sanders" and it should be something like "Sanders presidential campaign kickoff, May 2015" (I uploaded with the wrong date). Could someone help me with this, or is there a tool where I can do it myself? I don't know of a gadget that supports renames. czar 23:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

There's no standard tool. I'm changing ", 2016" to ", May 2015" which should be sufficient. --Fæ (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

All right, thanks! If there is a non-standard tool, could be useful.  czar 22:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User Tm and his knee jerk response

I don't know if there are other users here but I have had a disheartening experience. I admit that I made a few mistakes and vandalised some photos. I am genuinely sorry for that and I wish I hadn't done so. However, I have been subjected to some sort of ritualised behaviour on the part of a User Tm. He or she has undone all of my edits to photo descriptions including ones that are actually descriptive. I don't understand his or her response and I am at a loss to understand why they can get away with this. Please ask them to stop doing this because if they don't, I am going to write a formal complaint about this abusive behaviour. Is this how new people are treated on this website? What exactly is achieved by doing this? Please find the links below to this persons bizarre actions.

Sincerely 188.29.164.129 18:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:AktstudienTreppe_10FWS_07.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=187499323 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:2009-08-31-akt-muehla-074.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=187499281 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Antoinette_02.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=187498496 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Adeaa_Nude_Perfection_4_0001.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=187498390 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Bella_Vendetta,_age_22,_at_the_beginning_of_her_art-star_career.jpg&diff=next&oldid=187501086 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Artistic-naked-woman.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=187498252

• See this ip editions to see that my reversions are do to vandalism, not a knee jerk reaction. I only reverted editions that are 1 - are vandalism or are describing nude models as pieces of meat, with descriptions in detail, that given this ipfirst editions with mentions to models not having ajob, free porn, tits, etc are worrysome and troubling. Tm (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes I admit that. I'm guilty of bad behaviour but your continued response is childish in the least. What is wrong with describing a photo properly? Is "Adeea nude perfection" really a descriptive caption? In fact I would go so far as to say that that description is sexist. Is there a point where you get off your high horse and stop this childish response? Is there anybody else on this crazy website? 188.29.164.129 19:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Adding to an image creator's description in such a subjective manner is, as you say, wrong. Although we don't have a neutrality policy as such here, it seems to be generally accepted that the uploader's description of an image is respected unless factually wrong. Calling other editors out for correcting your edits isn't good practice- see here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps 188.etc should stop using phrases like wtf is wrong with ..... And after this little stunt it is only resonable to treat his edits as suspect. (No, a I am sorry but please look at the other guy campaing won't set you free) Natuur12 (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Inactivity run for February-March 2016

Hi admins; this is just to let you know that I have just started the admin inactivity run for February-March 2016.

As usual, all administrators listed in the table on that page have been notified on their talk pages (by myself) and via e-mail (by Natuur12); @O, the only one inactive since the previous inactivity run, has had their adminship removed on Meta by steward MarcoAurelio. Please join me in thanking @O for their excellent service to our community over so many years as an administrator. odder (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Tagline/sh

Please, can someone change MediaWiki:Tagline/sh from "Iz Wikimedia Commons" to "Iz Wikimedia Commonsa, repozitorija slobodnih medija" to match MediaWiki:Tagline in English (From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository)? Thank you. --Conquistador (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Conquistador: "Wikimedia Commonsa"? Can you please check again the typography in your proposal is ok? --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: It's a genitive form because of the preposition "iz" (see iz § Serbo-Croatian). --Conquistador (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit: Could you also change in Template:Lang-mp and MediaWiki:MainPages.js "Glavna stranica - Главна страница" to "Glavna stranica (sh)". Thank you. --Conquistador (talk) 09:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Very similar to Russian and most other Slavic languages, where after "iz" letter a is added at end of noun. Taivo (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Taivo: You have omitted " (sh)" in MediaWiki:MainPages.js (see diff) and have forgotten to change "Glavna stranica - Главна страница" to "Glavna stranica (sh)" in Template:Lang-mp. Tagline is ok now. --Conquistador (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Probably that's all. Taivo (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Taivo: Actually, there is one more thing to do. You should create MediaWiki:Mainpage/sh with the content "Glavna stranica (sh)". I hope that is all. --Conquistador (talk) 10:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Taivo (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

1893-08-01

Ah, there’s an inactivity run going on? Well, that explains why I’m getting watchlist warnings about deletion of categories like Category:1893-08-01. Nice! — admins working hard, hmm?… Because of course that’s a useless empty category, never to be filled — everybody knows that nothing happened on August 1st 1893 (maybe it went straight from July 31st to August 2nd…?).

Because deleting a bunch of empty categories without a second thought (something a bot could be instructed to do!) is an action worth of an admin, unlike, say, actually do something useful and search the parent cats (Category:August 1893 and Category:1 August) for items and/or subcats that should be dissiminated to this more specific category.

Utterly underwhelming. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Tuvalkin, I'm pretty sure you haven't forgotten that 1 August 1893 was the day that Alexander of Greece was born. If that's not worth having a category for, I don't know what is! Green Giant (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• It is populated. Please undelete. Josve05a (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• I've already been waiting for Tuvalkin's wellknown kindness. Maybe we should run a bot which creates categories for every day of, say, the past 1000 years because of course that aren't useless empty categories, perhaps to be filled — everybody knows that something happens every day. And empty categories of all streets of all cities could also be created on the fly... --Achim (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Likely files schould be automatically categorized in such categorys based on information at the information template. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
• Achim, I’m touched to learn that my “kindness” is well known. Please be asured I will mock admins’ petty tantrums and shoddy pretend-work only when I feel like, not in a regular, reliable basis — this is not a chore, after all. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Well, a short comment on that: Do we create a category if it is needed or if it perhaps might be needed some day? I know of users who did create hundreds of categories which are still empty for years. As already stated several times Special:UnusedCategories is completely useless the way it is because redirects are listed there. So no one is aware of the fact that there are 34822 empty categories which are neither redirects nor disambigs. I felt free to delete a few of them. --Achim (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Achim, you are confounding two things, either by malice or by naivety (not sure which is worse, though both are pretty bad): One thing is to comtemplate more or less automated creation of all possible categories of a given type (which you use as a rhethorical device expecting a resounding of-course-not reaction, although it could actually be defended). Another completely different thing is to delete an already existing category because it is empty, without considering its usefulness (I mean, go ahead and delete Category:Blueish orange oblong squares right now, I wont complain!), instead of trying to fill it out by dissiminating from parent categories or by exploring the huge mass of undercategorized items in Commons.

Why delete instead of populate? I could not figure it out — seems needlessly distructive. And then I saw this notice about an inactivity run: Cat deleting is an admin action, while populating empty cats is not. So work for a few hours doing the latter and you’d be improving the curation of a repository of free media, or work for a few hours doing the former and you get to keep your hat for doorknob polishing.

Also — those of us who work at categorizing know that encountering an already created category is way smoother than creating new ones on the fly. That said, I should state that I didn’t create Category:1893-08-01 just guessing it might be needed some day: It was either to categorize a file meanwhile deleted or recategorized, or by mistake (I don’t really remember, sorry). Thirdly, Category:1893-08-01 is merely one among several such deletions I encountered these last couple days, done by Achim and by others — and of course the number of actually deleted useful categories is much higher than I can see from my own humble watchlist. Finally, 34 822 empty categories, per se, do not hurt the project, unlike all other bulging backlogs of both admin and non-admin work — which is the operative word here.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Yay for undeleting, Josve05a — but that poses a question: In similar cases I have simply recreated such a category when needed, which any authenticated user can do, instead of asking for undeletion and await an admin to grant it. What happens to the edit history of a previous incarnation of a category (or indeed of a file or any other page regardless of namespace)? It is not visible from the history tab, or is it for admins? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Tuvalkin: Admins can see all deleted/hidden revisions of a page unless they've also been oversighted (admins have the option of viewing however many deleted revisions a page or file has when they look at a particular page/file's log). When doing restorations or history splits/merges, an admin can select the revisions to restore by ticking the box next to them. This comes into play when former creations of a page were by vandals, when a history clean is done to selectively hide/delete all edits by a sockmaster/vandal, or when overwritten/mistakenly uploaded files need splits/merges. This is the best tool by far for dealing with LTA sockmasters like David Beals with his continuous overwrites, or Wikinger with his abusive stalking posts and offensive edit summaries. It can be a lot quicker than the hide function, and can be used to completely deny LTA's attention. History splits and merges are relatively complicated, and so only a small number of admins deal with them.

  With images, the more common the name, the better chance you have that there are prior deleted revisions which were copyvios or out of scope. Sometimes it has to be clarified which deleted revision needs to be restored via an OTRS ticket. Admins can usually see all the deleted versions, again unless something was oversighted. There are many pages/images here that have deleted revisions "underneath" what regular editors can see, that admins can easily see in the logs. The same is true on the various wikis. INeverCry 03:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the through reply, INC. I suppose that for categories with ordinary names which were deleted due to them being empty the hassles above are nearly non-existent, though. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 04:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• In simple cases you just restore pages/files/cats with one click and an optional summary. INeverCry 05:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Green Giant, I had no idea about Alexander’s birthday. But I was making use of irony — of course things happened on that day and therefore deleting the category out of mere bureaucratic process (and in fact to show pretend-work) was a disservice to Commons. Thanks for pointing it out! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Tuvalkin, I'm always happy to help disillusioned Wikimedians with obscure and unwarranted information! :) Green Giant (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with deletions of permanently empty categories. --A.Savin 14:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not about permanently empty categories. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 04:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of content without drawing attention to it

Hi,

I'd be grateful if you could advise Commons' procedure for having a photograph and personally-identifiable information regarding to a younger user removed from Commons without (ironically) drawing attention to it.

(As far as I'm aware, Wikimedia in general seems to favour removing this in such cases, so I'm assuming that's a given, I just want to know the best way to have this done, presumably involving an administrator).

Thanks, Ubcule (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

enwiki has en:Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. May want to ask an oversighter whether they have procedures here comparable with the enwiki one.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

In serious cases, you might contact an oversighter. They can permanently remove certain information, but — as all our oversighters also have admin-rights — can also completely delete a file.

In less serious cases, you might contact an administrator you trust. Admins can hide certain information from the general public and, of course, completely delete a file, provided the deletion is covered by our or by general Wikimedia policy. --Túrelio (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Yes, that rings a bell, I remember some sort of policy at en.wikipedia, but I couldn't have told you what it was called. IIRC I saw similar attitudes here, but I wasn't sure if there was a formal policy on the subject or where I'd find it.

@Túrelio: The case I had in mind isn't especially egregious in itself; it's really just personally-identifiable info I didn't think should be out there, and that I didn't want to draw further *public* attention to. Can I just tag the pages as speedy or something similar?

Ubcule (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ubcule: You should probably just send an email to [email protected], which is a secure mailing list that only oversighters have access to. There's not really a 'speedy criteria' for what you need, and trying to use a speedy for the purpose would likely involve needing to explain. Explaining 'why' on the wiki would quite likely cause the amounts of redaction needed to increase. Also, oversighters have the ability to not just 'delete', but 'suppress' files and revisions, which makes them inaccessible to even us 'mere mortal' administrators. I seriously doubt any admin would not simply apply common sense to such a deletion, but it might not be obvious. Revent (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: Had minor reasons for preferring not to use email, but will do that anyway since it's clearly the best option- thanks for the info. Ubcule (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ubcule: If particularly 'paranoid', you can use the 'email this user' feature on the wiki to contact a specific oversighter directly... the list is at COM:OV. Revent (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: Didn't know it worked that way, had assumed it was just a mailto link. It's not that big a deal anyway, as I've already sent off the email, but thanks for letting me know! Ubcule (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Please close this DR

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fervingpictures, thanks--Motopark (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done by Zhuyifei1999. Revent (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Translation request

Because {{Self-photographed}} is protected I am not able to do it personally. Just please add |pl=Fotografia własna in the proper place. --jdx ^Re: 18:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done You can also use {{Edit request}} on the talk page of the protected page, though it might not be noticed as quickly. Revent (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Macintosh

Could an admin move Macintosh back to Apple Macintosh because Macintosh is a type of an apple. And, the correct name for the computer is an Apple Macintosh. The move was made by a now globally blocked vandal. Thank you. Nepaxt (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Nyttend (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Update name

I uploaded [[11]] image on a page but later renamed my username due to it being my real name as I was advised it is not a good idea to use it. But for this image my old user name is still the author. For rest every contribution the author name is updated but not for this image. Can you help with it? WavesOfTahoe (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

And I would also request that you may remove this picture as it is the same picture and uselessly sticking (again) with the old author name. or atleast change the old user name to new one.

267 copyvios currently

Experienced admins could help with the backlog @ Category:Copyright violations, thank you! Palosirkka (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Creator:Safarov shahzod s.

please check history--Motopark (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Could have been avoided if Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Safarov shahzod had been handled. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.--Motopark (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Curtin Engineering Pavilion.jpg

Please delete the 2015-05-28 revision of File:Curtin Engineering Pavilion.jpg, which was uploaded by User:Beachards. Not only was this done in violation of Commons:Overwriting existing files; it's also a copyright violation (https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/Images/UserUploadedImages/328/Curtin4.jpg, grabbed from https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/australias-universities/university-profiles/Curtin-University. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done The later version was probably copyright version, because uploader's and author's name were different. But the earlier version seems to me also suspicious and I created deletion request. Taivo (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Paul Sheer 2015.jpg

This file was uploaded earlier this week to a recently created Flickr account with no other uploads and then transferred here. I believe it is the same photo as File:Paul Scheer.JPG, which was recently deleted. In other words: it looks like license laundering and out-of-process restoration of previously deleted content. The uploader is clearly aware of Commons:Undeletion requests and has been repeatedly told to submit any evidence of permissions to OTRS, so this seems like a very conscious effort to bypass that. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

File is the same, but earlier version was only 219×325 pixels. Taivo (talk) 08:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

If it's the same, then please delete it in accordance with Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4. The fact that the Flickrwashed version has slightly higher resolution doesn't make it okay to bypass Commons:Undeletion requests or remove the need to provide evidence that Robyn Von Swank created this as a work for hire or transferred the copyright to Paul Scheer and that Scheer has approved publication under the stated terms. Meanwhile, the uploader has acknowledged that the file was "uploaded it to Flickr so we could upload it here". —LX (talk, contribs) 18:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Soohambanswal.JPG

Used in 2 userpages, please check--Motopark (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I see only one.

However, if the description is correct and the uploader is the subject, we likely have a copyright problem here. Ankry (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I also only see one, but on a related note, User:Sooham banswal seems to be a sockpuppet account of User:Hemant banswal, created to evade a block on English Wikipedia. It seems the user was only ever here to tell the world about himself. In my opinion, user pages and user page images of long-gone users that never made a single useful contribution should just be deleted. I also agree that the authorship and copyright claims seem unlikely. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Such deletion needs an explicit rule to be established, IMO. Image deleted as copyvio. I am leaving sockpuppeting investigation to sb else. Ankry (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Self-confessed sockpuppet does not need investigation. I blocked him indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

second file has not deleted

Commons:Deletion requests/File:TREO - JDK Network.jpeg, second file has not been deleted, please delete--Motopark (talk) 06:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

are next userpage out of scope ?

User:WalterKittel, can someone analyse and close case--Motopark (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is out of scope because they are not breaking any policies. It is simply someone who is unfamiliar with how Commons works. What they need is guidance i.e. point them to OTRS, advise them about categories and creator templates, and most importantly explain the copyright rules which apply in this situation. FredWalsh (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, very willing to learn, I tried to read the materials but have likely messed up a few things. Even more guidance appreciated, and apologies for any mistakes made! WalterKittel (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

NYPL batch upload blank pages

Example detected as blank, but kept due to library stamp.

Example page which would have been marked as 'mostly blank', but the bulls-eye test showed that only 2/4 of the central zones are blank.

Category:NYPL (mostly blank) (please add to your watchlist)

The same blank page test for the batch upload of IA book plates is being tried for part of the NYPL batch upload project. These are highly likely, perhaps 95% confidence, to be blank pages with little value, but pages with odd franks, odd damage/wear or relatively small or very light pencil marks might be automatically detected but will suitable to be kept based on human review.

There have been a handful of deletion requests during the batch upload for blank pages, this provides a much more systematic way of handling appropriate blanks using speedy deletion and should save significant volunteer time for weeding these out. If any admin would like to visually check images in the category and have a deletion blitz on all the truly blank images, that would be great. If valid files are being marked as blank, please do drop me a note and I can use those cases to consider improvements to the detection routine. As the NYPL have released 180,000 PD "documents", many with multiple scanned pages, there may be a significant backlog of housekeeping tasks over the next couple of months. I am deferring a more public announcement on the VP or elsewhere about the batch upload, until we hit 100,000 uploads or so for reusers and categorizers to play with.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Fae: I went through the first half of so of what was in the category, looking at each, and speedy deleted around 200 as 'accidental creation' (since they were not intentional parts to the project).... limited it strictly to pages that were absolutely completely blank of anything other than bleedthrough from the other side... no stamps, pencil marks, or anything 'at all'. Slightly tedious, to be honest. Revent (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Also removed all the ones with library stamps (like shown) with cat-a-lot (since easy to see from the thumbnails) and moved a couple of dozen 'obvious misdetections' into Category:NYPL (mostly blank) misdetections. Revent (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I look into adding a bulls-eye centre test as well as the more general central area test used currently, i.e. if 4/4 of the central square zones are non-blank then the image is probably not 'mostly blank'.

Bulls-eye test added, meaning that at least 2/4 of the central chess-board square areas must be blank for the image to be considered as "mostly blank", so this should automatically filter out any more of the tiny portrait style book plates. --Fæ (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Cleaned out more (it looks like someone else worked on it as well, as the category was a lot smaller). Trying to specifically only address those, myself, that are very 'obvious', one way or the other... there are some with pencilled notes that people will probably want to keep for 'completeness', but something like the blank inside of a cover is pretty meaningless... it's not even a 'page' in any real sense. Revent (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Just as a comment, since someone said something about keeping 'blank pages that are part of a book' on IRC... such pages that are part of the 'numbered sequence' of pages, in an text that is linked by page number, are useful and should be kept.... for instance, if 'page v' has text, page vi is blank, and page vii has text, we should keep the blank page. Blank page scans that are not intentionally 'part of the work', however, either inner sides of covers, or 'end papers' (which are purely an artifact of the bookbinding process) are quite meaningless, and there is no point to keep them. Similarly, many book scans have 'outer covers' that are not original, but are scans of the covers added when the book was later rebound by the library that owns it... these are meaningless, truly. If a 'blank page' that is actually part of the body of a work is speedied (at least by me) due to an automatic detection, it can clearly be reinstated, but the vast majority of these are not that, and it's worthwhile to handle this in a way that avoids as much tedious manual work as possible. Revent (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Since some people might find this interesting... in 'classical' book production, the work would be printed on quite large sheets of paper (of a standard size), with as many as sixteen different 'text blocks' on the same sheet. … these would be then distributed, intact, to bookbinders, who would fold and bind the sheets, and then later cut the edges (after binding) to the desired size (each folded sheet of paper was a 'folio'). This meant that the book itself would have a number of 'pages' that were a multiple of the folio size... at the ends, you would have extra blank sheets that simply filled out the folio. The exact same typeset 'text' might be (and commonly was) printed in different folio sizes... 8 to a sheet, 12 to a sheet, 16 to a sheet...the page numbering (and appearance of the text) would be identical... the difference would be the margin width and number of endpages. Since most library books (what we get as scans) have been rebound at some point, the number of endpages is truly meaningless, not even as evidence of the original printing method... the same printing, of the same book, sourced from different libraries, will vary, and they were meaningless in the first place. No point to keep them. Revent (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the reason I would encourage those most interested in book collections to upload a djvu file for the complete book. In the case of my batch uploads of book plates from the Internet Archive, and similarly from the Biodiversity Heritage Library, individual book plates are of high reuse value as simple images. Should Commons ever be able to serve individual pages from a djvu or pdf book to illustrate a Wikipedia article, then we may be able to supply reusers more intelligently; until then we probably have to try to both supply illustrative book plates and the whole book as different but linked sets of files wherever we can. --Fæ (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

may be rejected?

Hello admins, may be rejected?. --DH (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus yet, i removed the red box. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. "May be" - it's curently undergoing voting onto whether it should be. Readded. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that the best thing you can say for Commons:Requests for comment/User categories is that there's no consensus for the strong wording used there. Arguably, it has already been rejected, but as some of the key voting is sparsely populated, it's better to say its status as part of a guideline, as worded, is doubtful Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: You added the red box again. Please remove the box or use {{Tmbox}}. Adding red boxes to guideline pages is not looking nice. Thanks. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to changing the colour, but don't you think that that could just have been said upfront? Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Reply

Hello.Please reply to this and this.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong source

Hello.This page has been deleted:"Copyright violation: http://www.tasawak.com/images/shobrastreet001.jpg".But the link does not work!Is this image is contrary?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The image was deleted three years ago, and it appears that the domain has since been taken down or there is a temporary outage. However, the image in question was archived from the original web source as early as 2007. So it seems that the deletion over here was justified, but the image still exists at arz:ملف:شبرا.jpg. At Commons, however, we can't restore the image unless we can determine the original photographer and get a permission from them. De728631 (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Syria Freedom Flickr Account

Is the Syria Freedom Flickr Account trustworthy? If it is, would an Admin feel free to mark these 5 images as I don't know the author. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not. There's a reason it's listed on Commons:Questionable Flickr images. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the information on the blacklist. I will fail it. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Review of license reviewer right

Hi, could Ktr101's license reviewer right please be reassessed? The case is a portrait image from uploaded from Facebook by Ktr101, which then was added to a new English Wikipedia biography created by Ktr101, without ensuring there was evidence of a release from the photographer. The file was not marked with OTRS pending. The copyright file was left on both projects for 3 months. The relevant DR is at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mia Matsumiya.jpg. I had hoped to leave an observation there for Ktr101's consideration without taking it further, but it has been suppressed (diff) so escalation for independent review seems necessary.

The reply in the DR that "I have a life and am human" is incongruous with three calendar months elapsing, and originally having sufficient volunteer time to correspond with others, act on their behalf to upload a professional copyrighted photograph, and write Wikipedia biographies for them, but not having time to ensure that a valid copyright release was given. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

We saw it before regarding how this user deals with OTRS-ticekts and we saw it before regarding his own uploads. User doesn't know the most basic aspects of copyright. The I am a volunteer-card seems to be a poor excuse and indicates that the user isn't fully aware of the severity of such mistake. Yes, they do happen but his good/bad ratio is really bad. Therefor I  Support the removal of his license review rights. Thank you for raising this topic. Natuur12 (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

See also File:AlabamaNationalCemetery.JPG. No source. File:Mediatrixaltar.jpg. Sculpture from a non-FOP country. File:Stephen Singleton.jpg. com:DW File:Nokia 6280 closed.JPG. com:DW. File:Hardingnewlogo.jpg. Own work? For real? And those are manual transfers, not automated bot imports. And I only checked a couple of his recent uploads.... Natuur12 (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Based on the addition of an OTRS ticket today, Ktr101 appears officially to be giving copyright advice on behalf of Wikimedia Commons. Could someone independent please confirm whether Ktr101 has access to the permissions commons queue, and if not, how this happened? My understanding is that "authorizing" OTRS tickets on Commons, as Ktr101 has done for his own upload from Facebook today, is an issue for Meta as it is not controlled locally. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Fæ: That particular ticket looks OK to me FWIW, based solely on the ticket. He has been an OTRS agent since February 2012. Not sure when permissions access was granted... ping Krd? Storkk (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Based on m:OTRS/Personnel, he has access to permissions-en, but not permissions-commons, nor to photosubmissions. Hence my question about access to the Commons permissions queues which we would expect as a prerequisite for an OTRS volunteer to be approving tickets for files hosted on Commons, or to be giving the public advice about uploads to this project via OTRS, especially with regard to copyright policies.

As you can see the ticket, could you confirm there was an email from the photographer? It remains odd that the only photograph released was the poor quality version (which appears enlarged from a thumbnail image) used on Facebook and Twitter with no relevant EXIF data. --Fæ (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Fæ: it passes the standard of evidence that I generally require. I don't, however, do things like routinely checking WHOIS records and I generally accept tickets where the domain looks OK and the language is unambiguous. I would guess in this case that someone saw the Facebook photograph, then asked the photographer who emailed us the consent for the facebook photograph. Storkk (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

As I have been pinged: Yes, he is a permissions agent (as visible from the OTRS member global user group, but I have no link at hand to make it visible), and the permissions role is not devided between languages or projects. As far as I read the ticket, it has been handled correctly. --Krd 18:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Throughout my seven years on Commons I have worked hard to help contribute thousands of photos to the project. Sadly, as I hope we are all well aware, mistakes will be made and the occasional oversight will occur. In this particular instance, I thank Fæ for bringing this issue to the community's attention (as we all should in these instances), as I have requested and received the necessary email. As I hope you can see from this speedy resolution, the permission was given long before this issue was raised, but no OTRS email had been received. This has now happened.

This is, of course, an error on my part, and I always strive to improve on my work. While my status as a volunteer does leave my work at a less than professional standard, I feel that taken as a whole, my contributions show that I am more than up to the task of both productively and accurately helping Commons expand. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ktr101: Natuur12's links above are troublesome to me for a permissions-commons agent. Storkk (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kevin Rutherford Just some thoughts: Maybe you like to run a confirmation at Commons:License review/requests? Then the community can decide. :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

As the public on-wiki record is not up to date, could you confirm whether you have access to permissions-commons in order to add tickets to Commons files? (Tangent) There appears a miscount with 'thousands'. Here are a couple of links to help verifying statistics going forward; your account was created in 2009 and this search shows a total of 42 OTRS tickets to current files on Commons, while the database shows 1,376 images uploaded and 41 images have been deleted since upload. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do, and thank you for correcting the number bit above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ktr101: Can you please answer my question as well? --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, as I was dealing with the situation below and completely forgot to respond. I'll mull it over for the next few hours, and get back to you later today. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ktr101: could you please reply? You seem to be rather busy at Wikimedia Commons. If you don't reply I will just remove your LR rights so we can be done with it. Natuur12 (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that, as I have been busy in real life as well. In terms of running that again, I would have to decline as I know where I made my mistakes, and am more than willing to correct them. As such, I even plan on supporting your deletion nominations, as I erred and want to ensure that that does not happen again. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt that since this is more like a "been here, done that" type of situation. Could you please explain in more detail what you have done wrong and fix the uploads I mentioned but didn't nominate yet? (Which makes me believe that this is more like somekind of tactical excuse.) Natuur12 (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

In terms of what I did wrong, I uploaded images without checking the proper licensing and ensuring that they were correct. I also did not make sure that there were sources on the images (or that the sources were valid, such as appears on this image). I also did not check the authorship, which would have caught this image. However, it was a mistake, and I was sloppy in my workmanship. As such, you have gone through a few of them, and I plan on working on the rest of them this weekend, once I finish some more classwork, in order to ensure that everything is correct and that no mistakes remain on the site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for summarising what other people have already said before but that is not what I asked. Please explain why those files are problematic. Why is it a problem that a US-gov file doesn't have a valid source (when no valid exif data present), why are the files I point out derivatives of non free content instead of the copyrighted elements being DM, please explain why a photograph of a scuplture could be problematic. Please explain the underlying rationals instead of repeating what other people already pointed out. Look, if this was a "first time offence" I would give you some slack but it is not. And don't think that evading the topic is going to safe your LR-flag since you are this close of having it removed. Last change. Show us that you understand copyright law. Natuur12 (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

For the US-gov one, there are multiple reasons. Two of them that I am thinking about at this time are that someone could place a tag on an official-looking image and falsely claim that it was taken by a government official, even though that person was either never a government official, or they were taking it outside of their official capacity. If it is the latter, then the image cannot be kept and we would have to see permission just as we would for any other non-federal photographer. The other reason is that it gives us no way to tell if the photo was published by an official source, going off of what is mentioned in the previous sentence. In regards to the Alabama cemetery link, there is no way to see if this was published on an official site or not, and we have no way of knowing if the uploader was the one who produced the work.

For the derivative one, the image you pointed out would have been alright, except that he is holding another image, and that image itself would need the author's permission to exist on the site and allow for the derivative to stand. The phone photo has a phone which is under copyright, so permission would be needed to host it on the site from Microsoft, the new owner of Nokia.

For the sculpture one, this depends on the jurisdiction, as the sculpture could be under copyright by the artist. In the United States, this would apply if the sculptor died after 1846. This is because the photographer is taking a photo of something that is still copyrighted. As such, the photo is under copyright of the sculptor once it is created. While architecture such as buildings and structures do not fall under this copyright, anything sculpted remains under the copyright of the sculptor, and they hold rights to any reproductions of their work. As Filipino copyright does not allow for freedom of panorama, the above statue is unusable on the site. In the United Kingdom, works of art fall under the same rules as architecture, and anyone can reproduce these sculptures without permission from the artist.

I hope this clears things up a bit, as I have a few more images to go through in the next few days, pending other tasks on the projects. The Harding image was not a reproduction, and I should have tagged that when I saw it, instead of assuming good faith. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ktr101: I just have to reply to this point, on a somewhat 'meta' basis. "Assume Good Faith" is an assumption about an editors 'intentions', that you should consider 'cluelessness' as more likely than actual bad intent. AGF has nothing, at all, to do with an assumption of competence… copyright is complicated, and good faith editors are often simply mistaken. "AGF" has absolutely nothing to do with copyright or license review, and to be honest we should not even assume competence... it would be inappropriate to assume, for instance, that a particular uploader 'knows what they are doing' and so an image is ok when the file page does not indicate a complete rationale. Every file page, in and of itself, should demonstrate not only exactly why that particular image is acceptable to some 'random' reuser, but also how they can verify it's copyright status. AGF only applies to assuming that uploaders are actually being truthful about actual 'statements of fact' that they make, and even then those statements should be looked at to see if they are plausible. AGF has not a damn thing to do with license review, and license reviewers should be as careful as possible... for instance, it's entirely possible for the uploader to have trusted a source that was in and of itself violating copyright. Revent (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Ktr101 unfortunately you don't learn from your mistakes, but you repeat them time and time again. Case in point is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ellinair Avro RJ85 at Craiova Airport.jpg. Albatrossaer (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Voting regarding Ktr101's removal of license review userrights

I agree with Natuur12 and  Support the removal of the LR flag of Ktr101. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

 Support removal LR flag. --Fæ (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

 Support Third. Josve05a (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

 Support unfortunately... and also removal of permissions queues on OTRS. Storkk (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

OTRS access

This case highlights how the Wikimedia Commons community has no say in which volunteers are competent to have access to OTRS Commons permissions queues and are "officially" advising members of the public on Commons policies and copyright. Those of us without OTRS access are not currently even given the privilege of knowing who has current access to Commons queues as it remains impossible to work out from public information (what there is remains unmaintained).

@Krd: and other OTRS people with a personal investment in Commons; could this be corrected somehow? The current state of affairs where bizarre layers of secrecy have been invented in just the last couple of years, goes against our shared values of transparency and accountability. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

For the permissions queues, we have Template:OTRS/Users and the MarkAdmins gadget. However, I am unable to find any public information about access to the info-commons queues. --Didym (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Just as question, why isn't Commons deciding the agents for the permssion-agents? It is our project the tickets will involve, but we have no say. Who invented this system...Josve05a (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Nobody invented the system. We used to have some control here, but it was given away to meta stewards and OTRS administrators, the majority of whom have no history with Commons.

Didym, in addition there is m:OTRS/Personnel but there is no system for maintaining it, and as of this moment it badly misrepresents who has access to Commons queues. --Fæ (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

There is m:OTRS/Users which lists all OTRS users, and [12] which lists all OTRS users with permissions access. m:OTRS/Personnel is not maintained by the OTRS admins and the information may be outdated; the only thing ensured is that there are no users on this list who are not OTRS members.

As we have the global user group, I'd support to add this in the MarkAdmins gadget (if not already included), but I have no idea how to achieve that.

I'm open to support any suggestion, but to be honest from the first place, I don't see anything badly broken at the moment. If there is anything, please advise. --Krd 17:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

What is "badly broken" is transparency and accountability. The basic question "who is giving members of the public advice on Commons policies and related copyright issues?" is now impossible to answer. If we (non-OTRS volunteers) could see an accurate list of who has access to the Commons permissions queues, then we could raise a warning flag if, say, they had no experience on Commons, if they had not made a single edit here in a year, or they had demonstrated that they were not competent to advise others. From the thread above, Ktr101 easily fits the last category, and should not be advising others about copyright on Commons in any "official" capacity until they have a long good track record of getting it right, not a long bad track record of getting it wrong.

The Commons community used to have this ability, because there was a Wikimedia Commons OTRS user flag that could be added/removed locally. Now there is only a generic list that is irrelevant to Commons per se, we have lost this basic form of accountability.

The fix is to publish and maintain the full list of who has access to which Commons queues on OTRS. There is no valid reason for this to be kept secret, it can be produced by a straight-forward SQL report I believe, by an account with the right access. --Fæ (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I can't think of a good reason that this list minus Email, Name and Notes columns shouldn't be publicly accessible. I also think that an effort should be made to decentralize meta:OTRS/Volunteering. I know that some dedicated people comment on self-nominations over there, which is hugely appreciated, but I don't think that's enough oversight. Storkk (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Usercategory Mülltonne

Category:Mülltonne (english: garbage tonne} (Description: Schrottige Hochladungen (english: bad uploads)) should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.93.174.17 (talk) 19:50, 06 February 2016 (UTC)

A complex case of removing/renaming files and perhaps relinking of them

I actually do not know, whether this is the right place here. If you think this fits better on another place, you can point me to it.

As you can read in en:Johann Elert Bode “[a]s a youth, he suffered from a serious eye disease which particularly damaged his right eye”, and for most of the images in Category:Johann Elert Bode you can discern this, but there are two flipped images. For these the question is: Deleting or renaming to clarify this? One should be quite simple: File:JohannElertBode01.jpg is used only once. It could be replaced with the correct version of the more yellowish image I speak of hereafter. But the other (File:Johann Elert Bode.jpg) could be a problem: It is quite often used and the corrected file File:Johann Elert Bode .jpg has itself a potential issue: Note the additional, but easily overlooked white space character.

I would favour renaming or deleting File:Johann Elert Bode.jpg without re- or unlinking, because File:Johann Elert Bode .jpg should in my opinion immediately renamed to the former name. Another potential complication could arise, though: It may be, that in some Wikipedias the image description points to the fact, that it is a reversed image. At least in German Wikipedia this has been this way, until I changed it manually: de:Spezial:Diff/150265582/151696433. --Speravir (Talk) 03:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I think this is the best place to have this discussion. File:Johann Elert Bode.jpg needs to stay where it is — it's used 45 times on 31 wikis, while the other two have just four uses between them. However, this doesn't preclude the possibility of swapping files, i.e. something combining a history merge and history split: we can move the current file to a different title and move one of the other files to this title, without moving the description page. I've checked all of the pages using File:Johann Elert Bode.jpg, and I don't believe that any of them have captions that would be affected: almost all of them either have no caption at all or have a caption limited to his name and lifespan. The Hebrew Wikipedia has a longer caption, but it merely talks about Bode without addressing the picture itself, and the Russian Wikipedia simply says "Portrait of Johann Elert Bode". I think we can ignore the image with the different color, unless you want to rename it to something like "JEB greyish background" (or whatever color it is; I'm not sure) to avoid confusion over the names. We then can switch the files between the other two (it merely requires selective deletion and restoration), and once that's done, we can move "Bode .jpg" to something like "JEB reversed.jpg" to clarify the situation. This should resolve both of the problems you identify, without requiring a significant amount of work. But what do others think? I'm not doing this without hearing your thoughts, Speravir, or opinions from other people. Nyttend (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

First, to your point “File:Johann Elert Bode.jpg needs to stay where it is”: Essentially, yes. To say it in other words: File:Johann Elert Bode.jpg (no space before period) should be moved to File:Johann Elert Bode reversed.jpg or similar without redirection and relinking, then File:Johann Elert Bode .jpg (with space before period) should be moved to File:Johann Elert Bode.jpg with redirect and relinking.

Second, you are right, File:JohannElertBode01.jpg is just a grey version of, what is now File:Johann Elert Bode.jpg (i.e. the reversed image version), and could on the only used site be replaced with the right version of the first image after moving. --Speravir (Talk) 22:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend, I do not know, whether you’ve been the one, but now the file with the correct, fixed view is gone! File:Johann Elert Bode.jpg and File:Johann Elert Bode reversed.jpg are now the same file. The step to move the file with the fixed view (originally File:Johann Elert Bode .jpg) to File:Johann Elert Bode.jpg did not happen. This situation is quite disappointing! --Speravir (Talk) 18:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a caching issue; I see separate images when I view the files. Just clear your cache; if you don't know how to do that, see en:WP:BYC. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I see it now, as well. Thank you, and sorry for the bad noise. But just as information: I’ve had reloaded without cache and also had purged the category and then file page, before I wrote the above words. I’ve forgotten to purge the preview image itself, though. On the other hand on the German Wikipedia page about J. E. Bode also the wrong file version appeared for me (after I had fixed it earlier as written). That’s what made me angry. So, it could have been also an issue with the mirror server (I’m in Europe, you act on the original server, I guess.) --Speravir (Talk) 16:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

flood of IT-related copyvios

Since early this day there has been a massive attempt by a number of possibly related user-accounts to upload IT-related images (computer, network), which have been copied from the web, but are claimed as "own work", to Commons. These accounts seem to be active on :th wikipedia. The pattern of uploaded images was similar or nearly identical with all accounts. So far, I have blocked

• Sarawut sopak (talk · contribs) TH
• Saharatja (talk · contribs) TH
• ศรัญญา เกรียงธนกุล (talk · contribs) TH
• Poiwannisa (talk · contribs) TH
• Wiranya Tomkrathok (talk · contribs) TH
• Bbank sirawicth (talk · contribs) TH
• Pattarasiri.yo (talk · contribs) TH
• Eay.pch (talk · contribs) TH
• เบญจวรรณ สอนมัง (talk · contribs) TH
• May1641 (talk · contribs) TH
• Bussadarat (talk · contribs) TH

But there are also:

• Bbank sira (talk · contribs) TH
• Benjawa n (talk · contribs) TH
• Panumas En (talk · contribs) TH
• Jutamasmaggie (talk · contribs) TH
• BewJakkapong (talk · contribs) TH
• Num krisada (talk · contribs) TH
• Jackosaka (talk · contribs) TH
• Siriwatpit07 (talk · contribs) TH
• Nookoy (talk · contribs) TH
• ตั๋งค์ ศักดิ์สกุล (talk · contribs) TH
• Yuwaporn (talk · contribs) TH
• ธนกร เพ็งแก้ว (talk · contribs) TH
• วรายุทธ์ มนต์ชัยภูมิ (talk · contribs) TH
• Wanwisa longcho (talk · contribs) TH
• Systemtommy (talk · contribs) TH
• Fahdiizok (talk · contribs) TH
• Natkewalin Phensiri (talk · contribs) TH
• Lekheng sutasinee (talk · contribs) TH
• Suchadawa (talk · contribs) TH
• Thipmontha2537 (talk · contribs) TH
• Sirisak221 (talk · contribs) TH (old uploads from 03.2015, but similar user page presentation - uploads were also embedded at fresh created user pages)
• Sakchaihankla (talk · contribs) TH
• Montri Deedirek (talk · contribs) TH
• Oaftprime (talk · contribs) TH (old uploads from 03.2015, but similar user page presentation - uploads were also embedded at fresh created user pages)
• Tataeinkorat (talk · contribs) TH
• Taew-wichuda (talk · contribs) TH
• Pleng wongprakob (talk · contribs) TH (old uploads from 03.2015, but similar user page presentation - uploads were also embedded at fresh created user pages)
• Abalank (talk · contribs) TH
• Oliverdeathmetal (talk · contribs) TH
• Kiattisak khojanklang (talk · contribs) TH
• Paoza1412 (talk · contribs) TH
• Marisa.pr (talk · contribs) TH (old uploads from 03.2015, but similar user page presentation - uploads were also embedded at fresh created user pages)
• Tarinee Chokkratoke (talk · contribs) TH
• Suphatsara khamphan (talk · contribs) TH (old uploads from 03.2015, but similar user page presentation - uploads were also embedded at fresh created user pages)
• Wachiravit8529 (talk · contribs) TH (old uploads from 03.2015, but similar user page presentation - uploads were also embedded at fresh created user pages)
• Uraiporn (talk · contribs) TH (old uploads from 03.2015, but similar user page presentation - uploads were also embedded at fresh created user pages)
• Supanat Chawalraveewat (talk · contribs) TH
• Aummy.asia (talk · contribs) TH (old uploads from 03.2015, but similar user page presentation - uploads were also embedded at fresh created user pages)
• Keroponglom2 (talk · contribs) TH
• อิสริยาธนาคุณ (talk · contribs) TH
• Somyingsa (talk · contribs) TH
• Chotirot Wangiat (talk · contribs) TH
• Chayanee123 (talk · contribs) TH
• Wipavinee tamthong (talk · contribs) TH
• สุขทอง (talk · contribs) TH
• Oraneebow (talk · contribs) TH (old uploads from 03.2015, but similar user page presentation)
• Kyohei789 (talk · contribs) TH
• Weerachai rat (talk · contribs) TH
• Sukanya1920 (talk · contribs) TH
• Nattydusadee (talk · contribs) TH (old uploads from 03.2015, but similar user page presentation)
• Paweena is (talk · contribs) TH (old uploads from 03.2015, but similar user page presentation)
• Namfon Chalemram (talk · contribs) TH (old uploads from 03.2015, but similar user page presentation --> part of sockfarm Category:Sockpuppets of Todsapon.2537)
• นางสาวขวัญนภา มุ่งผลกลาง (talk · contribs) TH
• Anon199477 (talk · contribs) TH
• Nattapong autsa (talk · contribs) TH
• ถาวงษ์กลาง (talk · contribs) TH
• Watchareya kompimay (talk · contribs) TH
• Maczza (talk · contribs) TH (old uploads from 03.2015, but similar user page presentation)
• Nonthawat chanok (talk · contribs) TH (old uploads from 03.2015, but similar user page presentation)
• Suriyapongzeed (talk · contribs) TH (old uploads from 03.2015, but similar user page presentation)
• Surachet khaoropwongchai (talk · contribs) TH (old uploads from 03.2015, but similar user page presentation)
• Tassanasak (talk · contribs) TH (old uploads from 03.2015, but similar user page presentation)
• Teepakorn7814 (talk · contribs) TH (old uploads from 03.2015, but similar user page presentation)
• Notnoiina2468 (talk · contribs) TH
• จิรพันธ์ รองในเมือง (talk · contribs) TH
• Topperkimal (talk · contribs) TH (old uploads from 03.2015, but similar user page presentation)
• ภัคธร หล่อวิริยากุล (talk · contribs) TH
• จุฑามาศมุงขุนทด (talk · contribs) TH
• Takishimakk (talk · contribs) TH
• จุฑามาศมุงขุนทด (talk · contribs) TH
• พรรณปพร วิริยะเจตพงษ์ (talk · contribs) TH
• Thanakorn rakkuson (talk · contribs) TH (old uploads from 03.2015, but similar user page presentation)
• EakkachaiVo (talk · contribs) TH
• Worranon (talk · contribs) TH (old uploads from 03.2015, but similar user page presentation)
• ภัทรานิษฐ์ รอดกริช (talk · contribs) TH (old uploads from 03.2015, but similar user page presentation)
• Nipapron.ph (talk · contribs) TH (old uploads from 03.2015, but similar user page presentation)
• Mos Suttipong (talk · contribs) TH (old uploads from 03.2015, but similar user page presentation)
• Nattikan.ki (talk · contribs) TH (old uploads from 03.2015, but similar user page presentation)
• นฤเบศร์ แจ่มใส (talk · contribs) TH (old uploads from 03.2015, but similar user page presentation)
• Sanchaitangaon (talk · contribs) TH (old uploads from 03.2015, but similar user page presentation)
• Mylife191 (talk · contribs) TH (old uploads from 03.2015, but similar user page presentation)
• PlengPPM (talk · contribs) TH
• Suwimon bunmak (talk · contribs) TH (old uploads from 03.2015, but similar user page presentation)
• Phaka Saklang (talk · contribs) TH
• Bom Sonthichai (talk · contribs) TH
• Pattarasiri.P.yod (talk · contribs) TH

As the number of uploaded copyvios is rather overwhelming, I would ask other colleagues to keep an eye on such uploads. --Túrelio (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there an upload pattern that can be predicted? I'm thinking in the sense of a source website for the originals, or aspects of the uploaded image such as EXIF data or SHA1 values (i.e. previously deleted images) as well as if they are limited to 'Cross-wiki upload'.

It seems that a more systematic approach to flagging or even removing upload rights for accounts matching defined patterns of specific behaviour would save a lot of volunteer time and be useful if the trend of these types of attack out of scope upload were to suddenly increase. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, the images seem to have been copied from a lot of different sources, blogs, company-website, etc. — though due to the large number I didn't track them all to the last source.

In addition, only now I detected that Gunnex already early this morning spotted Lagkana111 (talk · contribs), which had uploaded the same kind of images, but a far larger number than the above listed accounts. --Túrelio (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we should temporarily halt all Cross-wiki tagged uploads from th: as a precaution? Any source where the number of copyvios starts to outnumber legitimate images by, say, 10:1 should be removed from our list of "trusted" cross-wiki sources until better precautions are in place. --Fæ (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Certainly one or two puppet accounts there which probably should be indef blocked as such (IMO) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

A ludicrous number of deletions later... Yes, puppets probably. I guess at extreme AGF it might just be some sort of mistaken class project but I doubt it. Out of time - sorry. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It may indeed be a gone-wrong class project, which would explain why each of the accounts uploaded an image of a (likely) highschool-girl/-boy. --Túrelio (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Tagging files and adding users (so far: 69 users = around /- 655 copyvios DRs for the old ones — all uploaded in 03.2015) Gunnex (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

All uploads are used for presentation issues on local (thwiki) user space: Example: th:User:Supanat Chawalraveewat (created in 02.2016) and th:user:Aummy.asia (created in 03.2015). For both: all files grabbed from Internet, except the user image. Currently, local user Sry85 is proposing a lot some of related user pages for speedy deletion. I am trying to catch the user page before they got deleted, because they contain the related copyrighted images. If someone is available to help... Gunnex (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok,  Done for now. It might useful to use the local search interface for user pages, searching for IT themes like "network" (or other terms) which results in user pages like th:user:Tataeinkorat (listed above, see also other terms the user used). Gunnex (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done for "network", Lan technology", "router", "TCP/IP". "wireless" (check for user page last modified: =/> 03.2015 02.2016) --> but there is certainly more. Related DR's: here. Gunnex (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

As alternative, a check of recent created user pages at thwiki would also serve. Pinging @Sry85: who is locally engaged to clear some of these user pages (like this edit, inserting a template, advising that [Google transl.] "Please do not use the pages of Wikipedia for homeworks or projects") Gunnex (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Add User:Bussadarat to the list. --Ahecht (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Gunnex (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I added Bom Sonthichai (talk · contribs) above a well. --Ahecht (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm an administrator at Thai Wikipedia. As mentioned above, these are students from a university that are instructed to use Wikipedia to do their coursework. We inserted a lot of template stating that "Wikipedia is not a place to do homework" and also a lot of speedy deletion template to their pages, so I hope that their instructor will be informed soon that Wikipedia is not a public space to do whatever they want. I also opened a discussion page for this incident. Please note that another related problem in Commons is, these users upload their own pictures to commons as well. Please see this for the delete requests. --Nullzero (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Revdel request

Could an admin please delete the first revision of File:Bge.png, which contains the start menu and taskbar of Windows? Thanks. Storkk (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Image being used for vandalism

File:Picture of Me.JPG appears to have been uploaded by Tulesters11 solely so that it can be used to vandalize the Wikipedia article Sigmund Freud. You can view its use to vandalize Wikipedia here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Image deleted and the uploader shown the door. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Selfies galore

I think Commons could live without this out of scope collection Special:ListFiles/Nayem2000. Thank you! Palosirkka (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• They have been nominated for deletion, you are more than welcome to comment at Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Nayem2000. Thanks! Riley Huntley (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Jermboy27

Jermboy is back with the name User:NotJermboy27returns. Please stop him. Mediatus (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• I've requested a global lock at Meta. INeverCry 20:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Érico (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

User rights change request

Can an admin please remove my Image reviewer and patroller rights and leave me with Autopatroller, filemover, rollbacker? I'd like to focus on more relaxed work going forward. Thank you for your time. INeverCry 19:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

•  Done Эlcobbola _talk 20:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Overwriting files

Greetings: I'd like some help with this File:Ahmad Jannati tsnm.jpg file please. There are two photographs superimposed on each other in the upload queue of this image. There may be others of this type in both users galleries. Thanks for the help! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

German-speaker needed for license review

Can someone who speaks German review File:Fichtenrüsselkäfer (Hylobius abietis).jpg? I've added the direct source, but I'm not sure where the free license is indicated. Thanks. INeverCry 17:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The image had been on :de since 2006. Regrettably the image-page on :de has already been deleted, so we need a :de-admin to check what the description originally said. --Túrelio (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

 Comment the dewiki license template used originally was deleted for lack of use... however the relevant source page dealing with copyrights seems to be http://www.naturspektrum.de/ns1.htm?defstart=text/text_impressum.php . The relevant language seems to be "Auf die Bilder, die alle von mir selbst gemacht wurden*, ist kein Copyright. Jeder kann sie herunterladen und für eigene Zwecke verwenden. Bei Publikationen oder anderer öffentlichen Verwertung der Bilder sollte lediglich die Quelle mit angegeben werden.", which implies {{Attribution}} I think. Storkk (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much. Also, they are saying they'd be happy over emails or links.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Problem images

CDGJ965commons (talk · contribs) has uploaded a lot of images that are questionable. Evrik (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by CDGJ965commons Evrik (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Advertising User

Hi, I am from en.WP and an article there was deleted for only containing advertising. The pictures used in the article are here: [[13]]. Can these be deleted? Thanks In veritas (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Resolved; I'll leave a note at In veritas' en:wp talk. Nyttend (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

User:144.136.88.8

This IP make stupid things: [14] Mediatus (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC) P.S.: Is this User:Jermboy27 too? Mediatus (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Falsche Bildlegende

In dem File:Giunta Pisano - Crucifix.jpg ist der Kreuzesausschnitt (Kopf) des Kreuzes der Basilika San Dominico fälscherweise Cimabue betitelt. Ich danke für Korrektur! R.Hopmann R.hopmann (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Hättest du übrigens auch selber ändern können. Gruß, --Achim (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Jermboy27

Jermboy is back. Now with a part of my Wikipedia-name: User:Mediatusker. He defend stupid things of User:NotJermboy27returns. And this guy was blocked yesterday. Mediatus (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

And the IP 144.136.88.8 (was bocked today) was Jermboy too, surely. Mediatus (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Mediatusker (talk · contribs) blocked. --Túrelio (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Ltljltlj

What is that: User:Jermboy27 alias User:Farish Ali load a file:

• 11:33, 20. Mär. 2010 Farish Ali (Diskussion | Beiträge) load a new version of File:I-110.svg ([15])

but when you look to the file ([16]), you see the username User:Ltljltlj. This user had load this file at the exactly same time as Jermboy27 alias Farish Ali. Is this normaly? And: some signs from Jermboy27 alias User:Rukshanawahab say, that the source was "Ltljltlj". Look here: [17]. Is User:Ltljltlj another name of Jermboy? Look at Ltljltlj's discussion side: [[18]]. He had a lot of problems with road signs, like Jermboy. Mediatus (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S.: And the first loader of the same file ([19]) had the name User:SPUI~commonswiki. And now look to this file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sign-am-lg.png. This file was load by User:Rukshanawahab, another name of Jermboy! And he said, the source of the file is User:Ltljltlj and it was made by "SPUI". SPUI - you see is only another name of User:SPUI~commonswiki - I mean this. And so, User:SPUI~commonswiki is a nother name of Jermboy. Mediatus (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

P.P.S: And the self closed english user "SPUI" [[20]] (User:SPUI~commonswiki linked to this user), had problems with signs etc. too: [[21]] :) Mediatus (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mediatus: Truly impossible to do more than guess, at this late date, at least on Commons. SPUI does not seem to have edited on any project for close to a decade now... Ltljltlj still occasionally edits enwiki, but not much at all (maybe a dozen edits in the last five years), and has not edited Commons since 2009. Revent (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

User:144.136.88.8

This IP make stupid things: [22] Mediatus (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC) P.S.: Is this User:Jermboy27 too? Mediatus (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Falsche Bildlegende

In dem File:Giunta Pisano - Crucifix.jpg ist der Kreuzesausschnitt (Kopf) des Kreuzes der Basilika San Dominico fälscherweise Cimabue betitelt. Ich danke für Korrektur! R.Hopmann R.hopmann (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Hättest du übrigens auch selber ändern können. Gruß, --Achim (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Jermboy27

Jermboy is back. Now with a part of my Wikipedia-name: User:Mediatusker. He defend stupid things of User:NotJermboy27returns. And this guy was blocked yesterday. Mediatus (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

And the IP 144.136.88.8 (was bocked today) was Jermboy too, surely. Mediatus (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Mediatusker (talk · contribs) blocked. --Túrelio (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Ltljltlj

What is that: User:Jermboy27 alias User:Farish Ali load a file:

• 11:33, 20. Mär. 2010 Farish Ali (Diskussion | Beiträge) load a new version of File:I-110.svg ([23])

but when you look to the file ([24]), you see the username User:Ltljltlj. This user had load this file at the exactly same time as Jermboy27 alias Farish Ali. Is this normaly? And: some signs from Jermboy27 alias User:Rukshanawahab say, that the source was "Ltljltlj". Look here: [25]. Is User:Ltljltlj another name of Jermboy? Look at Ltljltlj's discussion side: [[26]]. He had a lot of problems with road signs, like Jermboy. Mediatus (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S.: And the first loader of the same file ([27]) had the name User:SPUI~commonswiki. And now look to this file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sign-am-lg.png. This file was load by User:Rukshanawahab, another name of Jermboy! And he said, the source of the file is User:Ltljltlj and it was made by "SPUI". SPUI - you see is only another name of User:SPUI~commonswiki - I mean this. And so, User:SPUI~commonswiki is a nother name of Jermboy. Mediatus (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

P.P.S: And the self closed english user "SPUI" [[28]] (User:SPUI~commonswiki linked to this user), had problems with signs etc. too: [[29]] :) Mediatus (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mediatus: Truly impossible to do more than guess, at this late date, at least on Commons. SPUI does not seem to have edited on any project for close to a decade now... Ltljltlj still occasionally edits enwiki, but not much at all (maybe a dozen edits in the last five years), and has not edited Commons since 2009. Revent (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

License question with File:Boogaard in conversation cropped.jpg

File:Boogaard in conversation cropped.jpg Has a strange "license addendum" of If you would like to use this photo please leave a comment here, contact me via Flickrmail, or email nvjorgen [at] yahoo dot com. If you see this photo on the net leave a comment with a link to the page. Thanks. This seems a bit beyond the scope of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. Jim1138 (talk) 08:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• I am guessing it's a non-mandatory term, a courtesy request.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

please add address to blacklist

please add address to blacklist what are in userpage User:Ratanlal392--Motopark (talk) 15:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done. — regards, Revi 15:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Photo challenge/2016 - January - Diagonals/Voting

Please can an admin move this page back to Commons:Photo challenge/2016 - January - Diagonals/Voting. Thanks.

Also I think a block is needed for User:Marianna100. In addition to this disruptive move, and some weird edits, both images uploaded are clear copyvios. Someone is playing games. -- Colin (talk) 20:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Colin:  Done; I moved the page back to the Commons name space and left the redirect intact in case there are interwiki links pointing to the previous page location. As for @Marianna100, I deleted some of their uploads for being copyright violations but left them unblocked as they haven't contributed in a while and I'm not sure whether their edits have yet reached a level where a block is necessary. odder (talk) 23:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Jermboy27

Jermboy is back. Again with a part of my Wikipedia-name: User:Mediatusin (first User:Mediatusker; blocked at February 27, 2016). He make stupid things like User:NotJermboy27returns. Mediatus (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Now locked. INeverCry 21:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Blatant copy vio

File:Patricia Altschul.png has no evidence of permissions. If the uploader is the owner, they need to send permissions to OTRS. Could not find image at posted source www.charlestonanimalsociety.org but, the site is obviously copyrighted. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Nyttend deleted the file as copyright violation and Riley Huntley closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Patricia Altschul.png. Taivo (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

User:72.93.87.56 = User:Jermboy27

Jermboy is now back as a IP: [30]. We have closed Jermboy with the same IP-address at the German Wikipedia (02-25-2016 for 6 houres): [31] Mediatus (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Denniss blocked the IP for a day. Taivo (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

COM:D

Just FYI: Here I proposed a minor addition to our deletion policy which seems to be necessary if one looks at the filed speedies of today. --Achim (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Account Disable

I wouldlike to know why my email address was disabled? My email add. [email protected] Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.175.228.56 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 24 February 2016‎ (UTC)

In what way has your email been disabled? Are you prevented from sending emails to other users? If so, we would need to know your username. I hope that helps. Green Giant (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Whit Diffie at CFP 2007.jpg

Perhaps an Admin can mark and pass this image as I am transcluded from marking it. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Leoboudv:  Done. Green Giant (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Please delete

Could someone please delete the older versions of File:Portrait of Xun Yu.jpg and File:Portrait of Mi Heng.jpg(both uploaded by me)? The metadata reveals personal information of my friend, whose computer I was using when editing the images. I've uploaded new versions with the info removed. Thanks!--NoraCh (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Taivo (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

leaving a message

I received this message

"Hello Dmenkart.It has come to our attention that you have uploaded several files that are copyright violations. You have done so despite requests from editors not to do so, and despite their instructions. See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter useful. This is your last warning. Continuing to upload copyright violations will result in your account being blocked. Please leave me a message if you have further questions."

I wanted to "leave a message" as suggested, but I am not sure how. (I am going to submit both images for un-deletion since I have permission to upload them both for full public access and use.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmenkart (talk • contribs)

@Dmenkart: @Gunnex: is the person who left the message, so you would either reply on your own talk page using {{Reply}} (to ping him so he sees it), or reply on his talk page at User_talk:Gunnex.

You should not, if you have 'permission' from a third party, request undeletion... it will not happen. You should have the copyright holder submit evidence of the permission to COM:OTRS, and the OTRS agent will then request undeletion 'per the ticket' and attach the ticket number to the undeleted image. Revent^talk 09:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Out of scopie

I believe this guy is out of scope. Palosirkka (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Opened Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kimkayndo. Revent^talk 10:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Palosirkka (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Massupload of fully duplicates (today)

How is this possible (today)⁇ I really thought there is an duplicate block⁉ Compare Category:Farm-Fresh Web Icons and Category:FatCow Web Icons. User:CFCF has uploaded today hundreds of this, with which tool? ↔ User: Perhelion 15:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, these aren't duplicates — the pack was expanded with at least 2500 new icons and multiple of the images were changed/modified. I don't see the point of being so rude, nor of why you felt the need to jump the gun and send a category for deletion when all that is needed is merging and maybe clearing up a handful of dupes. CFCF (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello CFCF, where I'm rude? I mean the old files and I've not tested 1800 files (yet) but some and these are 100% duplicates. So sorry if I jump with a gun. I'm very wondering technically how this is possible. I really don't mean it's a handful (maybe additional work for other people and you)... What is the tool you used? You also don't used an upload comment. ↔ User: Perhelion 16:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Why you not striped the duplicate before? So how you find this duplicates now? So I belief you force intentionally other people work on. This could be a bit rude. ↔ User: Perhelion 16:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peloduro Portada No.99.png

(Note) Refactored this conversation slightly for readability, moving the continuation of a particular subthread above an interjected comment. Revent (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like to seek other people's opinion on the closure of this DR. Not only does it blatantly contradict Commons:Licencing and Commons:Precautionary principle, but also violates the outcome of Commons:Review of Precautionary principle; it was also closed under 7 days by @Yann, an administrator who has in the past wheel-warred multiple times over URAA-related deletions. The fact of the matter is that the author of that poster died in 1965, and as such the file was still copyrighted in Uruguay on 1 January 1996 when its copyright was retroactively restored in the US, as noted by @De728631. I wouldn't normally bring this straight to this noticeboard, however I find it deeply troubling that 18 months on, we are still fighting over this issue; but more importantly, I find it ever more concerning that hugely involved administrators routinely decide whether to delete or keep URAA-affected files.

What I think should happen here is that this file be deleted as still being in copyright in the US, and administrators who have previously wheel-warred and edit warred over URAA-related issues should be asked not to close URAA-related DRs. Pinging @Carl Lindberg, @Stefan2, @Gunnex, @Jo-Jo Eumerus, @Rybkovich and @Revent as they were (are) involved in a related discussion currently taking place in the copyright section of the Village Pump. odder (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• The URAA has been massively controversial here on Commons from what I can see in other debates. I would agree that this closure was against policy (IMO, the gist of the Not-PD-US-URAA template is that URAA issues need careful analysis whether it actually did restore copyright or not not just "URAA may apply, delete this", not a complete ban on deletion). That said, http://autores.uy/ the source site indicated is freely licensed; does this license apply to the file itself too? This was not analyzed at depth in the first DR, I am kind of uncertain/sceptical myself. Added more stuff to the DR.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
• On the one hand we have Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA (pretty clear consensus but a lot of poor quality opinions) and we have Commons:Review of Precautionary principle (less clear consensus but better quality arguments). Do those RFC's contradict each other? Perhaps not. In the first DR we concluded that being possibly URAA affected isn't a significant doubt and in the other RFC we concluded that there was no consensus to change the PCP. I would call Yann's closing a valid one because of the first RFC. (It is defendable and reflects community consensus. I am not stating that I agree or disagree with the ourcome though.) It can be motivated and it can be shown where we discussed it. I believe @MichaelMaggs: wrote a highly educational post regarding this topic in the middle of the wheel wars and uncertainty's but I can't find it. Link anyone? Natuur12 (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
• As the discussion was moved here, I repeat my argument. There is a clear consensus that images should not be removed from Commons only because of URAA. Mechanical application of URAA puts in risk digital heritage from many countries, and moreover, infringes users rights, while the material itself doesn't represent a real threat for Commons. No rights are violated in USA. There is not any Peloduro right holder or licensee in USA. Peloduro was never published in the United States. It is in public domain in its country of origin, and nobody will ever claim rights for it. So, please, apply common sense, like is usual on our community, rather than a tight and biased interpretation of the USA law. I ping @Yann, @Banfield, @Ezarate and @Poco_a_poco, as they were involved in previous DR discussion.--Señoritaleona (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Señoritaleona: The COM:PRP explicitly prohibits us from using such 'we can get away with it' arguments. The community overwhelmingly rejected the idea of relaxing that principle with respect to the URAA at the second URAA RFC. There is not a 'clear consensus that images should not be removed from Commons only because of URAA', if there was this conversation would not be happening. If, after careful review, a work is 'clearly' under a restored copyright due to the URAA, then it is a violation of the licensing policy and must go away, and legal gave us guidance on how to do such a review. That would not be a deletion 'because the URAA exists', it would be a deletion as a violation of the licensing policy. We cannot, legally, host files that are known to be under copyright in the US without a compatible license. Period.

The consensus, effectively, is that a mere 'concern' that the URAA applies, without a well-founded analysis of if that is actually the case, is not a reason for deletion.... legal also endorsed that, when saying "if a work’s status remains ambiguous after evaluation....it may be premature to delete the work prior to receiving a formal take-down notice". That is not a statement by legal that we should not delete URAA-affected files without a takedown notice, which is another tired argument.... it was saying that if we are 'unable' to determine if a file is actually affected, for certain, then a takedown notice would give us the information needed to be certain, and so it is acceptable to keep the file and wait for one. Revent (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• [edit - there is a flaw in my point the the URAA is straight forward re other country's law determining only the initial author] The case of Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc. brings forth the ownership/substantive rights distinction which maybe very relevant under our circumstances. The case was previously discussed in the Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2016-02 File:Aboriginal Flag 01.jpg. The principle is that if a case is filed in the US, the status of the plaintiff is is determined by the country of the origin of the work, and the substantive rights i.e. the law by which the trial will be held is determined by the law of the country where the law was violated (which in Itar-Tass and our cases is the US). We all agree that Pelodura Portada No.99, under URAA, cannot be considered to be in the public domain in the US. What we should consider is that if this case is filed in the US, and if Itar-Tass applies, the plaintiff may be determined by Uruguayan law and not the US law. Under Uruguyan law there cannot be a plaintiff since the work is in that country's public domain. So an upload may technically violate the US copyright law but at the same time that may not produce a situation where we need to be concerned and delete that upload.

Also in Itar-Tass it is stated that there can be situations where the the law concerning ownership may be other than the country of origin. All of the above may be the kind of situations referred to in the WMF's legal team when it states that:

"However, if a work’s status remains ambiguous after evaluation under the guidelines, it may be premature to delete the work prior to receiving a formal take-down notice, because these notices often contain information that is crucial to the determination of copyright status. Due to the complexity of the URAA, it is likely that only a small number of the potentially affected works will be subject to such notices. These guidelines differ from the more proactive systems currently used by the community for other copyright violations, but the complexity and fact-intensive nature of the URAA analysis makes a more active approach imprudent." Legal/URAA Statement

So this could be one of the reasons that we follow the WMF legal team's suggestion and delete this file only if WMF receives a formal take-down notice with relevant information and then instructs us to take down the file. And it could be one of the reasons that we follow the WMF legal's suggestion in general. PS I do not know of any cases were the URAA/Itar situation has been addressed. Rybkovich (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Rybkovich: Your argument regarding the ITAR case is incorrect (and it's worth noting that the case was filed before the URAA went in to effect). The decision in ITAR was that for deciding who actually owned the copyright, 'lex originis' applied (in that case, Russian law) but that for actually deciding if infringement occurred 'lex loci delicti' applied (in that case, US law). The argument you make would actually invalidate 'all' copyright claims under the URAA (as it would deny standing to the owner of a restored copyright), and the URAA has been upheld in 'real world' court cases. In URAA cases, we have no need to care 'who' the copyright holder would be under the law of the nation of origin, unless someone is trying to license the work, we only need to care that such a copyright actually exists.

The legal team clearly did not say that we can only delete a URAA-affected file after a takedown notice.... they said if the status of the work is still ambiguous after our analysis, then we 'can' decide to keep it until we get more information (in such a notice) that makes the situation clear. In this case, there seems to be nobody actually claiming that the work does not have a restored copyright under the URAA, the arguments made were instead the often-repeated complains about the law itself. I agree, it's a stupid law, but the WMF and Commons are subject to US law even if it is stupid, and we cannot host unlicensed files that are known to be copyrighted in the US. Revent (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: No my argument would not invalidate all copyright claims under the URAA. URAA addresses the issue of whether or not a work is copyrighted in the US. After URAA, and before his work entered the Uruguayan public domain, the owner of the copyright of the image was able to protect his copyright in the US, something the owner could not do before URAA. The issue may arise when the copyright enters the public domain in the country of its origin and the author is no longer the owner under that country's law. From the Itar-tass wiki: " The court defined that the plaintiffs' rights were to be determined by Russian law, but the infringement had to be judged by U.S. law; and came to the conclusion that under Russian copyright law, the news agency Itar-TASS and the individual authors of the newspaper articles certainly were copyright holders and thus entitled to sue. The court of appeals affirmed the choice of applicable law made by the lower court. It agreed that Russian law was to be used to determine who was the copyright holder of a work, and that U.S. law was to be applied to figure out whether a copyright violation had occurred and to judge it". A solid argument can be made that if the issue went to court, under Itar-Tass, the Uruguayan law would be used to determine the copyright holder of the work and US law would be used to determine if our uploading of the work violated the owner's copyright. Under this analysis there would not be an owner of the work under Urugyan law, the author of image would not be entitled to sue. Yes under Itar-Tass some parts of URAA's implications would be paradoxical. However, if the original owner of the copyrighted work sold the copyright to some one else in Uruguay, would we respect that re-assignment? If so, why would we not respect the Uruguayan law under which the work went into public domain? This paradox will eventually have to be resolved. I have not looked into case law. Do we know if this issue has been addressed? You are right, WMF's legal teams statement does not directly address this issue but it does address ambiguity, which would arise if we agree to be concerned about Itar-tass/ownership issue. Rybkovich (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Rybkovich: If it was held that the expiration of a copyright in the source nation made the 'previous owner' of that copyright unable to enforce a restored copyright in the US, that would make the URAA largely unenforceable. The restored copyright terms, and their ownership, were created on the date when the URAA went into effect, and in order to be affected by the URAA a work must have still been under copyright in the source nation on that date. The US copyright then exists, under US law, for the term mandated by US law (not the law in the source nation, since the US explicitly rejects the 'rule of the shorter term'). US law makes it quite clear (it is stated explicitly) that copyrights in the US depend only on actual US law as enacted... the restored copyrights came into existence on the URAA date, and do not expire (or become unenforceable) due to latter changes of the status of the work in other nations, unless there is a 'transfer of copyright' there that also includes the US rights.

I cannot cite a specific US case that has addressed this particular point, but it's imo clear enough from basic principles that it's unlikely to have been challenged... the US copyright is a 'property' separate from the copyright in the source nation, and it continues to be owned, and enforceable, after the domestic copyright has expired.... it's existence does not depend on the source nation copyright, since the 'rule of the shorter term' does not apply.

There are many, many works, completely unrelated to the URAA, that received a shorter term in their source nation than they received in the US. Such US copyrights continue to be enforceable after the source nation copyright expired. That a copyright term was restored by the URAA does not affect that... once 'restored', it merely exists. Revent ( talk) 06:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: You are right, I double checked and in the only case where the court relied on the original countries public domain to dismiss a claim was where the work was in the public domain before URAA. Rybkovich (talk)

 CommentA recurring issue at discussions of the URAA is the argument that Legal has said we should not delete URAA-affected files unless a takedown notice is received. This is incorrect, and is often supported by quoting only part of the legal guidance.

Ultimately, all Wikimedia projects are required to comply with the recent changes to US copyright law, but it remains unclear how these changes will affect individual works. The community should evaluate each potentially affected work using the guidelines issued by the Legal and Community Advocacy Department, as well as the language of the statute itself, and remove works that are clearly infringing. However, if a work’s status remains ambiguous after evaluation under the guidelines, it may be premature to delete the work prior to receiving a formal take-down notice, because these notices often contain information that is crucial to the determination of copyright status. Due to the complexity of the URAA, it is likely that only a small number of the potentially affected works will be subject to such notices. These guidelines differ from the more proactive systems currently used by the community for other copyright violations, but the complexity and fact-intensive nature of the URAA analysis makes a more active approach imprudent.

— Mdennis (WMF), posting on behalf of the legal team, 6 February 2013, in: meta:Legal/URAA Statement

The bolding is mine. It seems common that when this is quoted by those discussing URAA, the quotation of this starts immediately after that sentence, and the guidance is then taken to say, in various ways, that Legal has opposed the deletion of clearly affected files, or that we should not delete any URAA-affected files unless a notice is received. This is obviously not what was said. Revent (talk) 05:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

 CommentWikimedia Foundation states in February 2014:

Indeed, to date, we have not received a single takedown notice under the URAA. A valid notice would provide us with the facts necessary to make a determination under the URAA. It requires information that may not be available to a Commons volunteer trying to make a decision without a takedown notice. So WMF does not see a reason to delete content simply because of general concern about the URAA. If we receive a valid takedown notice or get actual knowledge of infringement, we will do a full legal analysis of the work based on all the relevant information that is presented in that notice and vigorously resist any invalid notices.

I think it is pretty obvious that we should apply this WMF advice in this situation, since the copyright status of this image is very complex: the image is in public domain in its country of origin and there are not copyright holders nor licensees in the US. The argument in favour of the deletion is abstract and is not based on any concern, but in a mechanical application of URAA, while this case involves much complexity. In cases like this, Commons volunteers should not delete the content until WMF receives a valid takedown notice and they do a full legal analysis.--Pepe piton (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Pepe piton: The discussion at the DR was grossly not sufficient to determine if this work was affected by the URAA, one way or the other. The arguments were instead about the URAA itself, or if Commons should enforce it. The COM:Precautionary principle prohibits us from using any kind of 'we can get away with it' argument such as you have made, again, here, and the community 'emphatically' rejected relaxing that principle with regard to the URAA at the "Review of the precautionary principle" RFC. We cannot simply 'assume' that the information needed to determine if a work was affected by the URAA is unavailable without a takedown notice, and Legal did not instruct us to do so... they said that we should attempt to analyze the status, and only if it is still ambiguous after such an analysis should we wait for a takedown notice. In cases where the status is actually ambiguous, we should (IMO) use a template other than {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}, that indicates the status was found to be unclear, that can 'only' be applied by an administrator closing such a DR, and arguments about the 'URAA itself' (instead of the facts of the particular case) should be disregarded when closing it.

At the DR, it does not appear that anyone, even those arguing to keep the file, attempted to establish (or even claim) that it's copyright was not restored by the URAA. The work needs a serious attempt at assessment, per the guidelines given by legal and the statute. Revent (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: I think you misundestood my argument. It is not a 'we can get away with it' one. The fact is that the work is in the public domain in its country of origin, there are no copyright holders, it was made available by an officialy supported website in its country of origin and it was never published in the USA. Because of these factors, a mechanical interpretation of URAA does not apply. WMF 2014 statement clearly reaffirms this.--Pepe piton (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Pepe piton: The four points you just stated as 'facts' are all, pretty explicitly, irrelevant to the question of if the copyright in the work was restored by the URAA. The US does not use the 'rule of the shorter term'... a copyright can continue to exist in the US, and be enforceable, long after the work enters the public domain in it's source nation... the US copyright, if restored, is a 'piece of property' that was recreated on the URAA date, it's continued existence is only dependent on US law, and a non-US owner can enforce such a copyright. It does not matter if we do not know who that owner is... we do not keep orphan works.

The only real questions in URAA cases are 'was the US copyright restored on the URAA date' and 'has the restored copyright since expired'. The first is complex, the latter is not, but the first only depends on the non-US status on the actual URAA date, not what happens to that foreign copyright later. The PRP prohibits us from considering if that copyright holder is actually 'identifiable', or if they are likely to actually attempt to enforce the restored copyright. The WMF statements were, as I said, that we should evaluate the work's URAA status, and only wait for a takedown notice if the status remains ambiguous after such an evaluation. The points you made are not relevant to the URAA status. That people make such arguments, repeatedly, instead of actually discussing if the URAA actually applies to a particular work is a significant problem, since makes actually discussing the URAA status much harder.. it turns DR discussions into useless, off-topic, and heated arguments about the URAA itself. The PRP (restated by me) says we do not care about such arguments, we only care if a US copyright actually 'exists'. Revent (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

!voting on the proposal, seperate from discussion of the URAA

•  Support "administrators who have previously wheel-warred and edit warred over URAA-related issues should be asked not to close URAA-related DRs" - Based on the nature of this closure, and other similar closures since the closure of the RFCs. (I'm working on a list, but it's a ton of material to look at). Also based on that Yann has previously argued regarding the URAA, on IRC, that Commons should simply ignore US law in such cases.

On a related note, I find it bothersome (having now looked at a 'lot' of old DRs) how often some admins, including Yann, regularly close DRs where there has been significant discussion with 'as above', or similar basically meaningless text, as a deletion rationale. If the issue at hand had been debated, then an admin closing it should explain their closing rationale instead of expecting someone coming along later to read the entire discussion and then simply guess. Revent (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not going to follow that. What I see here is a tentative by Odder to start again an old war. It is quite obvious that a majority of people do not support deletion of URAA afffected files in most cases, because it is quite difficult to determine if URAA applies or not. That IS the point made by WMF Legal department. That a few vocal users claim otherwise won't change anything. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I changed my closing statement. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Strong support per Revent. Those closing admins (including Yann as he is the one that closed the RFC of mass restoration of deleted images due to URAA) clearly have a POV. It would be fine if they will vote instead of closing discussions where they have a COI. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 11:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but it doesn't fly. This just looks like an attempt to prevent people opposing this to vote. Anyone is entitled to have an opinion. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, anyone can say their opinion, and I am not preventing someone to oppose this vote. Instead of accusing someone with something that they didn't do, just say your opinion without attacking someone. We are just going to make unnecessary drama again. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Analysis of the contested file

WMF legal indicated that we should look at the guidelines given at Commons:Deletion_requests/All_files_copyrighted_in_the_US_under_the_URAA#Legal_team.27s_statement, and the actual statute, when assessing if a file is affected by the URAA. This is an attempt to actually do so. Comments, and debate of the specific points, are welcome, but please take arguments about the URAA itself, or Commons policies, to the above subsection.

• Points of fact: The work was published in Uruguay on 7 July 1948. The author was Julio Emilio Suárez, a citizen of Uruguay, who died in 1965. Uruguay, and the US, were at that point in time both signatories to the "Buenos Aires Convention", which provided for mutual recognition of copyrights "where the work carries a notice containing a statement of reservation of rights" (this treaty was the source of the phrase 'all rights reserved'). There was at no point in time, prior to of after this date, a 'bilateral copyright treaty' between the two nations.

1. Where is the source country of the work?

• Per the BAC - The nation of first publication, or in cases of simultaneous publication that which gives the shorter term.
• Per the URAA - The 'eligible country' in which the work was first published. (Uruguay seems to clearly be an 'eligible country', as it joined the Berne Convention in 1967)

There is no indication, or argument, that the work was ever published outside of Uruguay, so it clearly appears to be the source nation.

2. When was the work originally created?

• June 1948, or shortly before.

3. Did the work have copyright protection in its source country on the date of restoration?

• Yes, clearly. The author died in 1965, and the copyright term in Uruguay is 50 years pma. The work did not enter the public domain in Uruguay until 2016, and Uruguay was a member of the Berne Convention long prior to 1 January 1996.

4. Why did the work enter the public domain in the U.S.?

• There are three potential reasons that would make the work eligible for restoration, and two (lack of subject matter protection, and national ineligibility) clearly do not apply. The remaining one is 'failure to comply with formalities in the U.S.'

This has not, at this point, been demonstrated. We do not know if the work contained a copyright notice, if it was registered, or if it was renewed. Without actually establishing those points, the status remains ambiguous. To establish this would need a check of the Catalog of Copyright Entries. It is unproven that the work ever entered the PD in the US.

The work, if originally published 'in compliance with the formalities', and then not renewed, had a US copyright that expired on 1 January 1977, at which point renewal was not automatic. Entering the PD due to non-renewal would cause the work to have a restored copyright.

However: If point 4 fails, and the work did not enter the PD in the US prior to 1 January 1996, then it has a US copyright, as a 1948 work, that lasts until 1 January 2044. There seems to be no way that this work is PD in the US. Revent (talk)

Another proposal: URAA-related deletion requests must be closed more than a week (2 weeks or 3 weeks)

I think that 7 days is not enough for URAA-related deletion requests, because URAA is a very complicated thing and should be reviewed carefully. So instead of closing URAA-related DRs for 7 days, they must be closed after 2 weeks or 3 weeks. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 11:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Vote (2 weeks)

•  Oppose No. Natuur12 (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Taivo (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Vote (3 weeks)

•  Oppose Natuur12 (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Taivo (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)