Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 63

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

Remove Autopatrolled

Hi, Please remove autopatrol user right from my alternate account which is above mentioned. Thanks — TBhagat (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Done, locked account. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — TBhagat (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello.I think that these files are Non-free television screenshots and some files have names and descriptions says it from specific works of art (See also ar:محمود عزت (ممثل)).Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

If you come across suspected copyright violations, please just nominate them for deletion and let the process happen. Thanks! Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I added the user into Flickr bad users list. A lot of TV screenshots and even a Google map. Taivo (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done. I mass deleted all his/her uploads. Taivo (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Moving images to wikipedia?

As per my Feb 25 comments on the Village Pump, there are images of sculptures in Category:Einar Jónsson that (by my reading) are still subject to copyright restrictions, but would be acceptable at English wikipedia under en:Template:PD-US-1923-abroad because the sculptures were made before 1923. Although there is a script (MediaWiki:ExCommons.js) than enables the movement of files in this direction, I don't have the admin privileges required to do so. Is there someone here who can please move the images in Category:Statue of Christian IX of Denmark in Reykjavík, Category:Statue of Jón Sigurðsson (Austurvöllur), Category:Statue of Jónas Hallgrímsson? Otherwise, they should be nominated for deletion. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I think they should be nominated for deletion, then (when closing the DR) we can move them to enwiki using the script. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I have nominated the images for deletion. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Please review the licensing

This photo was illegally taken by militants and then distributed to the media. The five pictured hostages were all killed. A photo taken part as an illegal act by militants cannot really be copyrighted. Can it? How can the militants who took this photo come forward and claim copyright? This is why I uploaded it as a free image. I invite all administrators to review it and post your opinions here. If you feel that it violates any policy, then feel free to delete it. Liberal Humanist Holla at me! 12:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Liberal Humanist: Please do not remove speedy deletion request templates (i converted the speedy to a DR). Yes, such files having copyright as well. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I will remove speedy deletion templates if I find that they don't make sense. You can't just add if you feel like it. It's not your father's property that you can do as you wish. You've got to read the rationale and discuss with the uploader. Look I'm not active on Wiki. Do what you want with the image! Liberal Humanist Holla at me! 13:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Liberal Humanist: I can only repeat Steinsplitter's request: If you disagree with a speedy deletion, convert it to a regular deletion request (the button for that is right there) and discuss the deletion on the deletion request page. Do not just remove speedy deletion templates. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Liberal Humanist, In my home country, bringing someone's father into a discussion when not warranted is often considered as personal attack. I am not sure this is the same in other country but please, assume good faith towards other editors even if you completely disagree with them. As you are already aware, people are allowed to disagree with you. Wikicology (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians

Hello.I think most of these files are copyright violation for the Uploader is not the photographer (Like this.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

That's possible, but we do not make a bulk DR for 3423 images. They all should be examined one by one and nominated for regular deletion, not speedy. I encourage you to participate in that and I'm going to participate in it too. Taivo (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Taivo: Well, I will work on Category:Wikipedians by country first then I'll think of a way to review the 3423 images.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Many images in this category would fall under Commons:Own work/Bystander selfie. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
This 'bystander selfie' thing has no status so far and also conflicts with COM:PCP. Topic starter is right, most files of this category will have to go. Jcb (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Jcb, Carl Lindberg has made a clear and detailed explanation in several places why it is a sound proposal. If I ask someone to take my photo with my camera, and I decide the time, place, the camera settings, etc., I am certainly at least co-author, and therefore I am untitled to license the picture. I also think that is how a court would rule in most cases. But you don't have any argument here. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Even if the personal thoughts of Carl Lindberg would be right, for very few if any of these pictures there would be a statement in which the depicted person would explain why he/she would be the co-author, 'untitled' or with a title, whatever. Jcb (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Money-IL

Looks like creation of derivative works are very limited, so it doesn't confirm to Commons:Licensing. All images which use it are affected. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

To me these are non-copyright restrictions that are common for depictions of money (for obvious reasons). Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
But template is clearly tells that currency design is copyrighted, and usage is limited with certain conditions. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

please undelete two images

Dear administrators, two images may be restored, as permission for cc-by-sa4.0 has been received from the designer/author, File:Logo gemeente Den Haag.jpg and File:Compact Logo gemeente Den Haag.svg. See OTRS ticket:2017020710011574. Thanks, kind regards, Elly (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done - next time please use COM:UDR for undeletion requests - Jcb (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Likely fraudulent user uploads

Godseeker4me (talk · contribs) has uploaded several photos of Motown artists which he has labeled as his own works and put in the CC-0 public domain but some of them are obviously scans from magazines (File:19a Jet Magazine.jpg or File:Freddie Gorman is Mr. Postman.jpg) and the rest are publicity photos. Correct me if I'm wrong but these should all be deleted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Also Experimento69 (talk · contribs). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I deleted all contributions of Godseeker4me and warned him/her. Experimento69 uploaded one suspicious file, but here copyright violation is not so obvious and I do not want to delete it speedily. Feel free to nominate it for regular (not speedy) deletion. Taivo (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
The “own work“ claim would seem very dubious for a 1962 photo, and the lack of metadata suspicious, but the image is much larger than any of the numerous versions TinEye finds online (including at Getty Images). Agreed that, coming from that era in the US, it’s not obviously a copyvio: the original rights may have been unregistered or lapsed. With a maximal A of GF it’s possible the user scanned a print, and neglected to add the underlying source & licensing info out of carelessness rather than intent to deceive.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Dubious photo

I'm concerned about this photo. It was uploaded by User talk:WHATaintNOcountryIeverHEARDofDOtheySPEAKenglishINwhat on March 6, 2017, and has since been added to a few high-traffic articles on English Wikipedia. I'm concerned about whether the photo is genuine. The US Border Patrol is equipped similar looking rifles, but it seems odd that an officer would pose with a rifle as he is "tracking someone in deep snow and very cold conditions". This would be along the Canadian border, and the Border Patrol tracking aliens with rifles is the sort of thing that makes the news. The officer--with face covered--looks kind of casual as he pursues an alien with a high-powered rifle. The photo was taken with a Verizon LG cell phone, and a search on Google for postings of this image on other websites brings back nothing. I left the photographer a message here asking for more details, but no reply. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I was tempted to call "airsoft" on this one but it seems that some old wooden-stock M-14 rifles found their way to the USBP in the 1980s. [1]. And this brown winter outdoor suit seems also to be standard issue. [2] The flag patch may be a bit unusual but all in all I think this is a real agent. De728631 (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

We need to undelete

please restore Bitag related images because of no fair use and copy it to Wikimedia Commons now i know Marikina uploaded non-free images please undelete now 2602:306:36D5:5690:64EA:351C:3B09:CC4A 06:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

For restoring files the proper place is COM:UDEL. I do not understand, which Bitag files should be restored and why they should be restored. Marikina58 has no edits in Commons, neither deleted nor living edits. Taivo (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Taivo: wikiversity:Special:Contributions/2602:306:36D5:5690:64EA:351C:3B09:CC4A → Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/EduardoComons, so this is probably Angola-related trolling. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Zaza Ruzadze, 2015.jpeg

Please delete the differing version - COM:OVERWRITE, unclear license. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Need some help, new here

I need some help, I've had my editing privileges stopped on the wikimedia object "Turgut_Reis_Admiral.JPG" -- long story short I was doing what I had seen others do which is reverting what I thought to be somebody else's edit war, rather than revert it again I uploaded a new file "Portrait of Dragut - The Drawn Sword of Islam.jpg"... and now it's being reviewed for deletion.. can I have some help here it appears that one or both of the images will be deleted and then the linked page will not have a proper bio image. Also please unblock my editing privilleges and assist me to set "Portrait of Dragut - The Drawn Sword of Islam.jpg" as an alternate version of "Turgut_Reis_Admiral.JPG" as I've already done in reciprocal. --Clevermercury (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Clevermercury: You are not blocked... the file was protected from editing, by Wsiegmund, to stop the upload war. Alonso de Mendoza's first revert, to restore the original file, was correct.... the file should never have been overwritten with one that was substantially different. Instead of starting a war, you should have either uploaded the overwritten image as a new file (as you eventually did) or asked at COM:HMS for an administrator to split the uploads.
@Discasto: It's helpful to provide an edit summary (link to COM:Overwrite) in such cases.
@Wsiegmund: You have to set all three expiration times... I don't think it needs indefinite protection yet. - Reventtalk
 Comment I made the requested edit to indicate the other version, and also added the notice for the open DR to the mentioned file, which is File:Turgut_Reis_Admiral.JPG. - Reventtalk 01:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 Comment Thank you Revent for fixing my error setting the protection on File:Turgut_Reis_Admiral.JPG. I've lifted the protection on the file altogether in response to Clevermercury's request. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Revent: Providing an edit summary is nice. Leaving a message in the uploader's talk page is, IMHO, better. Best regards --Discasto talk 08:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Discasto: Both are best. Not yelling at you. The TP message was just less obvious to third parties. - Reventtalk 09:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Revent: I'll take it into account for next times :-) --Discasto talk 09:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

History merges

What's the best route for a history merge of files? 9 years of adminning at en:wp has made me familiar with the ordinary process, so I deleted the target file first to make it easy, but to my surprise, when I tried to move BADNAME.png to GOODNAME.png, I got an error message, The file already exists, although no un-deleted revisions existed. I ended up using the basic "move" tab, without the convenient rename-files script associated with the "move and replace" tab. Is this really the best route to go, or is there something better? Files in question:

Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend: The error is due to the gadget, which tries to 'normalize' filenames (it invisibly converts PNG to png)... the trick when doing merges or splits is to either turn the gadget off first, or do the move/undeletion from the 'success' page you get when the admin action is completed (which bypasses the gadget). Hopefully that makes sense. - Reventtalk 09:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
To be more clear, when you tried to move png to PNG, the gadget normalized it, and thought you were moving png to png (on top of itself). - Reventtalk 11:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Defective compact fluorescent lamp x-ray.jpg

I think it is "Existent in many pages on the internet before uploading date" (per Google) and derivative work.Is this true?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: I don't see any uses that seem to predate it's upload here (which was in 2010). The uploader is no longer active, but he uploaded many such images, so it seems likely to be fine. - Reventtalk 09:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

COM:UDR

Hi, Could a German speaking admin please close the undeletion requests pending for more than 2 weeks? Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Krd and Steinsplitter: Ping. ★ Poké95 05:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I am involved (created the DR's) thus i can't. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm involved, too. Sorry. --Krd 17:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I tried to close these requests, but could not decide. I commented the photos. Another opinion is needed. Taivo (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done Yann has closed them. De728631 (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism on Licensing

I arrived at the page Licensing from outside COMMONS. I noticed vandalism which I have reverted. As this is a redirect to a policy page and this vandalism has happenned before may I suggest that the standard level of protection be applied to this page. Martinvl (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Fully protected for indefinite period. There is no need for everyone to be able to edit that page. --jdx Re: 11:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Sri Chinmoy photos -- Most are incorrectly licensed and do not actually have Share-Alike licenses

Most of the images in Category:Sri Chinmoy have been given the wrong license. The source page for most of them does not indicate a Share-Alike license: [3]. Could someone please take care of these? I've nominated two of them for deletion so far but there are too many for me to deal with. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Please delete

File:Amanda Seyfried hard at work.jpg - I could not find a "speedy delete" process unrelated to copyright. Is there one? --NeilN (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Deleted as a copyright violations, COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. (See COM:CSD for other reasons for speedy deletions, or COM:DR for "slow" deletions.) (t) Josve05a (c) 04:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. --NeilN (talk) 04:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. (t) Josve05a (c) 04:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

License review appreciated

I need to make extracts from these images; but the crop bot asks to wait until the review completed. Please help:

  1. File:Protosticta ponmudiensis 01.jpg
  2. File:Protosticta ponmudiensis 2.jpg
  3. File:Protosticta ponmudiensis 3.jpg
  4. File:Protosticta monticola by Emiliyamma and Palot.jpg
Jee 07:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done. All passed. Taivo (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Jee 08:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jee 08:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Inquiry

Actually I am from India and have knowledge about marathi and hindi language. Speaking about marathi Wikipedia i have an edit count of more than 1.2k while going through the main page of Commons there down there are translation of the main page. The hindi link takes to hindi version of common but when it comes to marathi it shows an harmony page for both of the main page. Why is this so? Unlike other pages main page consist of main page link where as both this version main pages are made in gallery section of Commons? Can anyone explain this to me (please ping me when you reply) --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 16:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tiven2240,
Both languages use the same word. The Hindi version was created first in 2004, and the Marathi version only in 2007. It is just a link on the Main Page, which I fixed. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 06:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Paulmarselus.jpg

Please delete as vandalism--I just deleted the associated vandal article on en-wikipedia. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Geni (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

File:戰國 鎏金嵌玉青銅帶鈎 Belt Hook.jpg

Can an admin look at this? I thought this was in the public domain? MechQuester (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Already deleted. Yann (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Err thats the problem. It looks like it shouldn't have been deleted as it was one of the images released under CC0 by the Metropolitan Museum of Art.Geni (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
And undeleted.Geni (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Admin request

Prior to April 19, 2011, I edited as User:Levdr1. I lost my password for that account. I subsequently created this account as a replacement: User:Levdr1lp (originally User:Levdr1lostpassword, and later changed to User:Levdr1lp). Yesterday, per the "Compromised accounts" bullet point at WP:VALIDALT (& my request), an administrator blocked the old account on the English Wikipedia for security reasons. Today, I'm requesting a Commons administrator to please indefinitely block the old account here on the Commons. Just to be clear, this is a request to block User:Levdr1 (no "-lostpassword" or "-lp" at the end). I realize it's been nearly six years since I lost access to that first account, and maybe I should've made this request sooner, but I would still greatly appreciate it even now. Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 06:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Levdr1lp: ✓ Done - Reventtalk 09:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Levdr1lp: Hello, if you want, you may request a global lock for your old account at m:SRG, which will totally prevent anyone from accessing your account (blocks just prevents editing). Thanks, ★ Poké95 11:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: Oh, thank you for bringing that to my attention. Apparently there is an unrelated German Wikipedia account with the same username. Does that matter? Levdr1lp / talk 23:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: Correction: although the German account is listed as "not attached", I believe the handful of edits made are indeed my own (I tend to focus on content related to Cleveland, Ohio, U.S., and the German account edits seem to reflect that tendency). Regardless, does it matter that the German account is listed as "not attached"? Also, m:SRG appears to list a global lock as only a temporary option in the event one's account is compromised. May I still request a permanent lock anyway? Levdr1lp / talk 09:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Striking-through previous comment. I now believe the "not attached" German account resulted from importing content from the English Wikipedia, including edits I made there. Levdr1lp / talk 22:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

File:RANDALL CARVER.png

May you undelete the image? I contacted Randall Carver, who is the copyright owner of this image. He said via email that he is releasing the image under CC 4.0 license. Should I or he forward all the messages to "[email protected]"? --George Ho (talk) 01:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

You can forward the email to COM:OTRS or Randall the photographer send their permission to OTRS. With kind regards. Wikicology (talk) 06:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
What about undeleting the image? I hope it's one of the images from his homepage, the upper-left one. I want to use the link to the deleted image. Otherwise, I must upload that image under a new name. --George Ho (talk) 07:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 Not done. Unfortunately source site has clear copyright message on bottom of page. OTRS-permission from photographer is needed. If Randall Carver will send the permission, then he must explain, how did he become copyright holder of the image. If you re-upload the file under new name, then it will be deleted too. Taivo (talk) 09:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Little help please

Hello, I don't know this is right place but I need a little help from experienced third party.

I have a little issue with user in this picture about overwrite and create new file with other user in this file. I see if has only two just wasting time with little war with no result. So I need third party check about this. Reason we written in file talk.

If you agree with him just check on his reason. If you agree with me can you split his ver to other file? Whatever your decision is, thank you for your time.Tnt1984 (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done I agree with you. I have split the file and moved the cropped version to File:Пулемёт Кольт-Браунинг M1895-14 - Тульский Государственный Музея Оружия 2016 01 (cropped).jpg. --jdx Re: 14:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help!Tnt1984 (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Please patrol this rcid

Hello, can an admin or UploadWizard campaign editor patrol rcid 548761122, which is Campaign:wlfalles? I am not an UploadWizard campaign editor, and even the API sandbox can't patrol it. Thanks, ★ Poké95 12:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Inactivity run for February-March 2017 is now finished

Hi everyone! This is just to let you know that the admin inactivity run for February-March 2017 has ended earlier today. @Tom has resigned his access during the course of the run and @Rillke has had their admin privileges removed on Meta as a result of their inactivity. Please join me here in thanking them for their involvement as admins and for their excellent service to our community over so many years. Thank you, and here's to hope we'll see you active again soon! odder (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Tom and Rillke for your contributions so far. Green Giant (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Good luck with whatever you're up to now Rillke. It was good to have worked with the wizard himself. Take care. lNeverCry 06:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for Protected Page Creation

Please create MediaWiki:Com-poty-no-voting-on-these-pages/ja with the sentence “このページからは投票できません”. This is necessary for translation Module:POTY into Japanese, thank you.--Kkairri (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 07:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Translation fix for MediaWiki:RotateRequest.js

Please doin edit protected MediaWiki:RotateRequest.js this small fix in German translation section (lang code de):
'intro': 'Du kannst dies Funktion verwenden, → 'intro': 'Du kannst diese Funktion verwenden, (additonal e after dies; the line is actually longer). — Speravir – 19:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Racist rant

Can an admin please delete Boobokitty, and either warn or block the user? lNeverCry 22:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done he also created a nonsense file talk page containing the same rant and uploaded an inappropriate file. Nuked everything and blocked the account indef. Natuur12 (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete this file

Please, can somebody delete this file (File:GhostinShell.jpeg)?. It was uploaded as a joke about the title of the anime series and 2017 movie Ghost in the Shell and is being used to vandalizing the Spanish version of Wikipedia. The image was uploaded by Mokosea and according CommonsDelinker, it would be a copyvio from another website.

Thanks and greetings. --Ravave (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Other speedy deletions backlog

Resolved

Hi, Just incase no one's aware there's a rather big backlog of images and various pages that need deleting at Category:Other speedy deletions, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Doing Yann (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Yann, Obviously there's no rush or anything but usually these are done instantly so thought I'd best let admins know, Thanks for kindly dealing with it - Much appreciated, –Davey2010Talk 15:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Request to revert mass templating of old images

Supporting links:

  1. Category:Photographs by the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force
  2. Past discussion User_talk:Fæ#Old_uploads_of_yours_up_for_review
  3. 2014 discussion at time of upload User_talk:Fæ/2014#Picasa_images_from_the_Japan_Ground_Self-Defense_Force
  4. Commenting and related parties @Yann, INeverCry, Ruthven, Revent, and Monfulta:
  5. Example DR (Keep outcome) Commons:Deletion requests/File:活動写真展示(第２師団写真展) イベント・行事・広報活動等 53.jpg
  6. Additional release statement (translation, see DR) "In the Ground Self Defense Force, even outside the photo gallery, many pictures are published on multiple social media (Picasa Flickr Pinterest Facebook). Those pictures can be used for the Internet, publications, etc. regardless of whether they are commercial or non-commercial, so long as you specify the source of citation (eg from the Ground Self Defense Force HP)."

License Review templates were retrospectively mass added to Japan GSDF uploads, done by me more than 3.5 years ago. Due to recently occurring link rot, this mass templating puts the files at risk of deletion, even though there is absolutely no risk that the original upload was not correctly licensed. We can be assured that the licensing was correct, not only because the files have persisted on Commons for over 3 years without a single one of the 1,300 photographs being deleted on copyright grounds, but also because of the community discussion at the time and care taken by me with the automated uploads from Picasa (see 3 above). Picasa has now been withdrawn by Google, and not all of these images will have alternative sources, so Commons has become the default master archive, a role highly suited to our project mission.

As a result of discussion (2), Faebot is checking all my uploads for linkrot, so that fixes can be considered. The situation is not unique, and we should plan for link rot for all uploads from externally hosted image sources who do not provide assured permanent links. The results are at Category:Uploads by Fæ with linkrot.

Wikimedia Commons has no policy or guidelines that mandate the use of LicenseReview templates. The templates are intended to be applied to new uploads so that an independent pair of eyes, or an independent bot with suitable license checking capability, can verify the license. Where the uploader is a mass uploader like myself, running license verification at the moment of upload, there is no risk that the licenses are wrong and processes like the LicenseReview are redundant.

The administrator action I am seeking is support for a mass revert of Yann's addition of LicenseReview templates to the 1,300 photographs. The images needing repaired links can be found in Category:Uploads by Fæ with linkrot if anyone wishes to work on these, and having the LR templates open is causing an unnecessary backlog headache. As can be seen in the referenced discussions, over the past 10 days, Yann has refused to revert the mass templating despite these alternatives and community agreed policy being presented. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

License reviews are not needed. We probably need to have a community proposal about it, rather than tacitly accepting the impractical and unhelpful mandatory use of License review templates on old uploads or images with recently noticed dead links. --Fæ (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that in this case and a few others, where I've seen mass review tagging of older images, that there's no real need for these reviews. In some cases the link could be updated, but when we're dealing with 1000 images that becomes an unreasonably labor-intensive task. I would support a proposal to nix the reviews in cases like this. My action as detailed above is only a temporary solution meant to clear out the license review category so that reviewers have an easier time getting to current uploads awaiting review. lNeverCry 10:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I have to repeat myself here, but license review is needed, specially because the source link is dead. Fae could easily do that with his bot, as it should have been done at the time of upload, and I don't understand why he would not do it now. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for deletion by LTA

User:Freedom For Taiwan is locked for Long term abuse. Can someone delete them? MechQuester (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. Freedom for Taiwan has no userpage and talkpage is very short, so no need to delete them. The user uploaded some photos, but "uploaded by banned user" is not a reason to delete files. It can be an argument, but the photos are in scope and properly licensed. Taivo (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Permanent ban of Dr. Bernd Gross

Hi everyone, on behalf of the oversight team, I would like to let you know that Dr. Bernd Gross has now been permanently banned from Commons.

As some of you might have noticed, Dr. Bernd Gross was indefinitely blocked from editing Commons on 25 November 2016 by odder; the block became the subject of significant discussion in January 2017. Following a prolonged review of the situation which necessitated the block, including a discussion among the oversight team and in consultation with the Wikimedia Foundation's legal department, we have reached the decision to permanently ban Dr. Bernd Gross and have now updated his block log and user page accordingly.

We have made this decision jointly in our capacity as long-term community-elected administrators on this project, but based upon information provided to us on a need-to-know basis in our capacity as oversighters. We are taking this measure to fulfill our obligation to protect the safety and privacy of our fellow contributors to this project, and are therefore not in a position to negotiate the ban in any way.

Due to the constraints of the access to nonpublic information policy and the oversight policy, we are unable to disclose any rationale for this action other than "reuploading photos of identifiable minors without permission after numerous warnings." The specifics of the matter are covered by our mandate as oversighters and the abovementioned policies: we cannot discuss them without violating our core obligations as oversighters, and therefore will not go into any further detail.

We recognise that we cannot simply ask the community to blindly trust us in this decision; firstly because we believe that trust is earned continuously rather than given forever, and secondly because we realise that this decision is at the outmost limits of our purview as oversighters. We therefore kindly request that questions on this matter, should there be any, be addressed to a trusted third party, such as the legal team at the Wikimedia Foundation--who, as we mentioned earlier, have been consulted about this case--or any other trusted party competent in such matters, for instance the Support and Safety team at the Foundation.

We realize that this situation is exceptional in its rarity, and has placed us in a very difficult position. We are fully aware that our mandate as community-elected administrators allows us to propose a ban with community discussion, that our mandate as oversighters allows us to take a very specific set of actions without community discussion pursuant to the oversight policy, and that this is a borderline case that dangerously pushes the boundaries of our purview.

We would therefore like to assure you that we have gone to extraordinary lengths to resolve this issue in a different way, but have ultimately decided to permanently ban Dr. Bernd Gross from Commons. This decision should not be considered to establish any precedent that oversighters have any such authority in general, and we would like to call on the Commons community to design institutional procedures to address such situations if they arise in the future.

On behalf of the Commons oversight team, - Reventtalk 04:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Countersigned by:

Discussion

Note also that the banned user has the accountcreator right, I think it is necessary to remove it since they won't use the right anyway due to their ban. ★ Poké95 07:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I have now amended the block and removed the accountcreator user right; I believe it was left behind by @Revent as only bureaucrats are able to add to, and remove from, this user group. odder (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the time and effort you put in this case and thank you for easing the community by motivating what you have done and why you choosed not to make the ban reason public. I trust your judgement regarding the matter. Natuur12 (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
1 Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It is regrettable that such a course of action has been necessary, but as this involves material which needed oversight, it is only correct and fair that we allow the people we trusted with the oversight permission to deal with this issue as necessary. It is certainly appreciated that the statement was agreed and countersigned by five member of our oversight team. These situations are never easy when oversightable material is involved, but I believe this has been handled in the best manner possible. Thanks to all the OS team involved in this. Nick (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    1: Thank you for posting this summary and supporting it with the signature by all members of our oversight team. Thank you also for contacting the legal team of the WMF regarding this matter. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I have some stomach ache with this descission. DBG uploaded images he was not allowed to upload over a long time. So far, so easy. A lot images were deleted. But there were never consequences - he never was blocked until his final block. No warning (and a real warning is for a lot of people a block, not words). So the first real reaction was a indefinite block. This is in my opinion too hard, the false way. And belive me - in this case this is hard for me to say, because I know casualties of DBG. A indefinite block is at the end not the problem. But if we start to let such people work in this way over years without telling them in clear form (= blocking them for some time) that we don't want this, we are even guilty. What comes next? An indefinite block is a final descission. Final! But until coming to a final, there should be steps between. This should, this can't become the usual way in such cases. I belive, the Oversighters really knew what they've done and I trust them. Even I don't like the way. Please - this to all Administrators and above - we must act earlier in future. It's not OK, that users are allowed to upload over years such images to harm peole he did not liked. A second case DBG should not come again. Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can know the problem lasts since at least september 2013 (I was elected OS during the summer of 2013). At some point this has to stop, if the DBG was to acknowledge the problem things would probably be different (speaking only for myself), but the denial doesn't help to build a positive solution. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
To comment on Marcus' remarks,
  • there was no prior disciplinary measure against DBG because the matter arose through the Oversight channels, and in this capacity we do not have explicit disciplinary attributions. We therefore attempted to contact DBG by mail and in person. When we realised that none of our messages had any effect, the problem had taken such a magnitude that drastic measures had to be taken. It is therefore true that the complete ban came without prior blocks, but DBG was notified several times in ways that left no ambiguity as to the seriousness of the situation.
  • Marcus is quite right that we should take some time to think of procedures and clear attributions for such cases in the future. Now that we have an example of what can happen, but are not pressed for time, we have the opportunity for a calm and balanced reflection; this is the best opportunity to build a framework, much better than under pressure, we should seize it.
Best, Rama (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Repetitive speedy deletion errors

I'm getting the following error notification:

Error: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Paulinamissu2014.jpg&action=delete at line 43: Uncaught Error: Unable to parse title

These error messages pop up on the right side of my screen when I'm on a page that has a speedy deletion tag, regular deletion tag, or duplicate tag, and then while I'm doing the deletion, and even after the deletion is done. The lines are 1, 43, 76, and 201. These pop up and disappear over and over and over. It doesn't stop me from doing the deletion, but it's very annoying. Thanks. Daphne Lantier 17:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The above is what the errors look like in Chrome. Here's what they look like in Firefox:

Error: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=ext.centralNotice.choiceData,display,geoIP,impressionDiet,kvStore,kvStoreMaintenance,startUp|ext.centralauth.ForeignApi|ext.centralauth.centralautologin.clearcookie|ext.echo.api,init|ext.eventLogging,navigationTiming,wikimediaEvents|ext.eventLogging.subscriber|ext.gadget.AddInformation,AjaxQuickDelete,Cat-a-lot,CleanDeleteReasons,CropTool,DelReqHandler,DisableImageAnnotator,Favorites,GoogleImages,HotCat,OldEdittools,PictureOfTheYearEnhancements,QInominator,QuickDelete,RotateLink,ShortLink,Sum-it-up,Tineye,UdelReqHandler,UserMessages,Watchlist-wo-uploads,autodel,fastcci,instantDelete,libCommons,libJQuery,libUtil,popups,purgetab|ext.gadget.jquery.blockUI,in-view|ext.uls.common,eventlogger,init,interface,preferences,webfonts|ext.visualEditor.desktopArticleTarget.init|ext.visualEditor.supportCheck,targetLoader,track,ve|ext.wikimediaEvents.loggedin|jquery.byteLength,checkboxShiftClick,cookie,getAttrs,highlightText,makeCollapsible,mw-jump,placeholder,spinner,suggestions,tabIndex,textSelection,throttle-debounce|jquery.uls.data|mediawiki.ForeignApi,Title,Uri,api,cldr,cookie,experiments,jqueryMsg,language,searchSuggest,storage,template,user|mediawiki.ForeignApi.core|mediawiki.action.view.postEdit|mediawiki.api.options,user,watch|mediawiki.language.data,init|mediawiki.libs.pluralruleparser|mediawiki.page.patrol.ajax|mediawiki.page.ready,startup|mediawiki.page.watch.ajax|mediawiki.template.regexp|mediawiki.ui.button,icon|mmv.bootstrap,head|mmv.bootstrap.autostart|oojs,site|schema.NavigationTiming,SaveTiming,UniversalLanguageSelector|skins.vector.js|user.defaults&skin=vector&version=1j03og4 at line 433: Error: Unable to parse title

I hope that helps in getting this figured out. Daphne Lantier 19:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: @Krd: @Zhuyifei1999: @EugeneZelenko: Pinging some tech experts. I've added commons.wikimedia.org##.mw-notification.mw-notification-autohide.mw-notification-visible to Adblock Plus so they go away quicker, but they're still irritating. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Daphne Lantier 21:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 Can't reproduce. Could you add a &debug=1 to the url and get the traceback from the browser console (for Firefox and Chrome, F12 -> Console)? For reference, line 433 of the linked url is
languages[code];return true;}return false;};}(jQuery));});mw.loader.implement("mediawiki.ForeignApi@1qyok8l",function($,jQuery,require,module){});mw.loader.implement("mediawiki.Title@0jol0x5",function($,jQuery,require,module){(function(mw,$){function Title(title,namespace){var parsed=parse(title,namespace);if(!parsed){throw new Error('Unable to parse title');}this.namespace=parsed.namespace;this.title=parsed.title;this.ext=parsed.ext;this.fragment=parsed.fragment;}var namespaceIds=mw.config.get('wgNamespaceIds'),NS_MAIN=namespaceIds[''],NS_TALK=namespaceIds.talk,NS_SPECIAL=namespaceIds.special,NS_MEDIA=namespaceIds.media,NS_FILE=namespaceIds.file,FILENAME_MAX_BYTES=240,TITLE_MAX_BYTES=255,getNsIdByName=function(ns){var id;if(typeof ns!=='string'){return false;}id=mw.config.get('wgNamespaceIds')[ns.toLowerCase()];if(id===undefined){return false;}return id;},getNamespacePrefix=function(namespace){return namespace===NS_MAIN?'':(mw.config.get('wgFormattedNamespaces')[namespace].replace(/ /g,'_') ':');},rUnderscoreTrim=/^_ |_ $/g,rSplit=/^(. ?)_*:_*(.*)$/,rInvalid=new RegExp('[^' mw.config.get('wgLegalTitleChars') ']'
This is where the error is raised, but do not indicate at all where the invalid title comes from. (And javascript minification makes debugging much more difficult) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: When I go to console I get the following over and over and over:

Uncaught Error: Unable to parse title
   at new Title (eval at <anonymous> (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1ozcoro:4), <anonymous>:43:2012)
   at eval (eval at <anonymous> (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1ozcoro:4), <anonymous>:116:12)
   at Object.normalizeGalleryTags (eval at <anonymous> (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1ozcoro:4), <anonymous>:114:409)
   at fire (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1ozcoro:45)
   at Object.fireWith [as resolveWith] (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1ozcoro:46)
   at done (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1ozcoro:135)
   at XMLHttpRequest.callback (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1ozcoro:141)
If that doesn't help, is there any way to shut off these mediawiki pop-up notices completely (maybe something I can add to my common.js)? Daphne Lantier 07:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The above is from Chrome. This is from Firefox:

Gadget "popups" styles loaded twice. Migrate to type=general. See <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/RL/MGU#Gadget_type>.  File:Krewella-press-pic-1024x512.jpg&debug=1:56:45
Gadget "Cat-a-lot" styles loaded twice. Migrate to type=general. See <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/RL/MGU#Gadget_type>.  File:Krewella-press-pic-1024x512.jpg&debug=1:56:191
Use of "importScriptURI" is deprecated. Use mw.loader instead. load.php:153:910
This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "jquery.ui.position".  load.php:57:291
This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "jquery.ui.widget".  load.php:88:942
This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "jquery.ui.core".
Please use "mediawiki.ui.button" or "oojs-ui" instead.  load.php:11:84
Use of "addOnloadHook" is deprecated. Use jQuery instead.  load.php:153:910
Error: Unable to parse title  load.php:435:327
Title https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/load.php:435:327
refreshFaveCache https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/load.php:171:820
normalizeGalleryTags https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/load.php:169:409
jQuery.Callbacks/fire https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/load.php:45:104
jQuery.Callbacks/self.fireWith https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/load.php:46:431
done https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/load.php:135:757
.send/callback https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/load.php:141:562
onStopRequest resource://gre/modules/WebRequest.jsm:347:7
Adblocker makes it so these errors just flash off the screen quickly, but it's still a little bothersome. Daphne Lantier 08:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Adblocker Plus gets rid of all the pop-ups in Firefox, but I prefer to use Chrome. Firefox can be a bit clunky. Daphne Lantier 08:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea, sorry. --Krd 08:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Krd: Do you know of any way to shut off these mediawiki pop-up notices completely? They seem superfluous. Daphne Lantier 09:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Can you provide a screenshot or photo? --Krd 09:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Krd: Here it is in Firefox: File:Error message on speedy deletion pages.png. Here it is in Chrome: File:Error message on speedy deletion pages (Chrome).png. Daphne Lantier 09:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Daphne Lantier: Could you, in firefox (I'm more familiar with firefox): 1. add debug=1 the the page you are accessing; 2. send the link to wherever "done https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/load.php:135:757" and ".send/callback https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/load.php:141:562" links to? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're asking for. I'm not at all familiar with programming languages. It surprises me that you don't have a way to shut off the mediwiki that controls the pop-up function. It's the same thing that tells you a page has been patrolled when you click the "mark this edit as patrolled". It's called "mw-notification". I've provided two screenshots just above. Daphne Lantier 09:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Daphne Lantier: . The URL is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mufti.jpg; please screenshot https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mufti.jpg?debug=1. And then F12 into the browser console, press the corresponding links for "done https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/load.php:135:757" and ".send/callback https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/load.php:141:562", it should go to a url. Please screenshot that as well. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: I've uploaded both screenshots on top of each other in this one file: File:Error message on speedy deletion pages.png. The links all go to huge pages of code rather than any url. I'm headed to bed, so that's it for me. If there's no way to shut these pop-ups off, don't worry about it. Adblock Plus kills them completely in Firefox, so I've got that browser, and I'll check out Opera tomorrow. Thanks again for the help. Daphne Lantier 11:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm looking into it. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea, sorry. --Krd 09:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
That's OK. Thanks for looking at it. I'll delete the screenshots, though I did black the copyvios out and re-upload. I'll just use Firefox for deletions and license reviews and Chrome for everything else... Daphne Lantier 09:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Now that I think of it, I'll likely get these same errors if I file deletion requests or do speedy tagging in Chrome, so the browser is pretty much useless. I'll have to download Opera and see how that does. Thanks again to Krd and Zhuyifei1999. I appreciate you both taking the time to check this out. Daphne Lantier 10:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Cause: According to the console error, the issue occurs in Gadget Favorites ("Mark images as Favorites and send thanks to uploaders. [documentation] "). After a brief reading of its code, I believe that the gadget attempts to parse the gadget inside User:Daphne_Lantier/Favorites and encounters invalid gallery entries, eg. "|"" by [[User:Akrogonac]]", and these are caused by two seemingly corrupted Delinker edits Special:Diff/234312509 and Special:Diff/233929338. Pinging @Dschwen: as author of the gadget and @Steinsplitter, Magog the Ogre, and Magnus Manske: as maintainers of Delinker. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Zhuyifei1999: Yay! I've removed that gadget and I'm getting no more error pop-ups. Thanks for taking the time to look into this and get it figured out. I really appreciate the help. Daphne Lantier 20:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Daphne Lantier and Zhuyifei1999: see the discussion here: Help_talk:Favorites. I fixed that issue. --Dschwen (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@Dschwen: Everything's back to normal and there's no more pop-up errors. Thank you. I really love being able to fave images like your wonderful "It's cool to be kind." photo. Daphne Lantier 05:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Potential file and version deletion

(Deutschsprachige Admins, das ist was für euch.)
There is this file already renamed by me: File:January Sanssouci Castle -Magic Germany Photography 1990 Preussen - panoramio.jpg. In my eyes the original filename now acting as redirect violates Commons’ policies (you have to understand German). The issue now is, that the redirect should be deleted, but also the current and in the moment only version, because the inappropriate text is in its upload comment, too. — Speravir – 01:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done I've deleted the redirect and hidden the original revisions of the current page. Daphne Lantier 03:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Strange, I do see, that the redirect is gone, but the problematic upload comment is still there. I think, a duplicate has first to be uploaded on top for a clean version. — Speravir – 03:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done Daphne Lantier 06:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Daphne, and now I see the striked out “edit summary removed” for the first version. So you very probably did everything right from the beginning and it was a caching issue here (though I did reload without cache before my answer). There was a similar issue in the past: You probably sit in the US and have access to one of the north American WMF servers. I sit in Europe and get the contents from the European mirror. In some cases there seems to be some delay between the servers. I also had some connectivity problems to German Wikipedia yesterday. — Speravir – 03:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Uploaded derivatives

This really isn't a matter for administrators in particular. I'm moving it to COM:VP. Nyttend (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Uploads of User:Viva la Anarchie

Could an admin please review the recent uploads of Viva la Anarchie (talk · contribs) please? This user has a string of copyvio warnings, plus a week long block in January, but at least one of their latest uploads is a copyvio, and I suspect the rest are too. Thanks. Optimist on the run (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Uploads deleted, user blocked for one month. Daphne Lantier 10:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Could an admin move File:Midpoint logo.png to enwiki?

I think this is fair use, and as such I think it should be on enwiki. PokestarFan (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I you don't think that the file {{Pd-simple}} then you have to file a COM:DR. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Apart from that, the file is licensed under CC-by-sa-4.0 but no evidence has been provided for this claim. I have tagged it for missing permission, so let's wait and see how this turns out. De728631 (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@PokestarFan: Admins do not hold any "move" powers. They can move the file to enwp the same way you can, by uploading it using en:Special:Upload (or some tool/scripts). No need to ak admins on Commons to do that, unless the file has been deleted on Commons, which would require an admin to download and save the deleted file. (t) Josve05a (c) 16:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
He is currently blocked on en.wiki, simple.wiki, commons. MechQuester (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Merging files history

Hi I have a request. For the file File:Flag of the Lugansk People's Republic.svg, could you move the "19:56, 24 June 2014" edition to File:Variant Flag of the Lugansk People's Republic.svg. Also, for the file File:Flag of the Donetsk People's Republic.svg, could you move the "22:59, 11 April 2014", "20:45, 12 May 2014" and "16:19, 16 May 2014" editions to File:Flag of the Donetsk Republic (Organisation).svg ? Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Translation to add

Please add the following translation to MediaWiki:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js/sl. By the way: Is it possible to import Cat-a-lot into Wikipedia? Thanks-a-lot, --Janezdrilc (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC) 

//<source lang=javascript>
/*global $:false, catALot:false, mw:false */
/*jshint */

//DO NOT CHANGE THE NEXT LINE 
if (mw.config.get('wgUserLanguage') !== 'sl') {
//DO NOT CHANGE THE PREVIOUS LINE
	mw.messages.set({
		// Preferences
		// new: added 2012-09-19. Please translate.
		// Use user language for i18n
		'cat-a-lot-watchlistpref': "Nastavitve Spiska nadzorov, ki se nanašajo na urejanje s Cat-a-lot",
		'cat-a-lot-watch_pref': "Po tvojih splošnih nastavitvah",
		'cat-a-lot-watch_nochange': "Ne spremeni stanja nadzorov",
		'cat-a-lot-watch_watch': "Spremljaj strani, urejene s Cat-A-Lot",
		'cat-a-lot-watch_unwatch': "Med urejanjem s Cat-a-lot odstranjuj strani iz svojega Spiska nadzorov",
		'cat-a-lot-minorpref': "Označi urejanja kot manjša",
		'cat-a-lot-editpagespref': "Omogoči kategoriziranje podstrani in podkategorij (za razliko od datotek)",
		'cat-a-lot-docleanuppref': "Odstrani {{Check categories}} in druga manjša čiščenja",
		'cat-a-lot-subcatcountpref': "Prikaži kar največ podkategorij",
		'cat-a-lot-config-settings': "Nastavitve",
 
		//Progress
		'cat-a-lot-loading': 'Nalagam ...',
		'cat-a-lot-editing': 'Urejanje strani',
		'cat-a-lot-of': 'od ',
		'cat-a-lot-skipped-already': '{{PLURAL:$1|Naslednja|Naslednji|Naslednje|Naslednjih}} {{PLURAL:$1|stran je bila preskočena, saj je bila|$1 strani sta bili preskočeni, saj sta bili|$1 strani so bile preskočene, saj so bile|$1 strani je bilo preskočenih, saj so bile}} že v kateoriji:',
		'cat-a-lot-skipped-not-found': '{{PLURAL:$1|Naslednja|Naslednji|Naslednje|Naslednjih}} {{PLURAL:$1|stran je bila preskočena|$1 strani sta bili preskočeni|$1 strani so bile preskočene|$1 strani je bilo preskočenih}}, saj stare kategorije ni bilo mogoče najti:',
		'cat-a-lot-skipped-server': '{{PLURAL:$1|Naslednja|Naslednji|Naslednje|Naslednjih}} {{PLURAL:$1|stran ni bila spremenjena|$1 strani nista bili spremenjeni|$1 strani niso bile spremenjene|$1 strani ni bilo spremenjenih}}, saj je prišlo do težave s povezavo do strežnika:',
		'cat-a-lot-all-done': 'Vse strani so uspešno obdelane.',
		'cat-a-lot-done': 'Opravljeno!',
		'cat-a-lot-added-cat': 'Dodana kateogrija $1',
		'cat-a-lot-copied-cat': 'Skopirano v kategorijo $1',
		'cat-a-lot-moved-cat': 'Prestavljeno v kategorijo $1',
		'cat-a-lot-removed-cat': 'Odstranjeno iz kategorije $1',
		'cat-a-lot-return-to-page': 'Nazaj na stran',
		'cat-a-lot-cat-not-found': 'Kategorije ni bilo mogoče najti.',
 
 
		//as in 17 files selected
		'cat-a-lot-files-selected': '{{PLURAL:$1|Ena izbrana datoteka|$1 izbrani datoteki|$1 izbrane datoteke|$1 izbranih datotek}}.',
 
		//Actions
		'cat-a-lot-copy': 'Kopiraj',
		'cat-a-lot-move': 'Prestavi',
		'cat-a-lot-add': 'Dodaj',
		'cat-a-lot-remove-from-cat': 'Odstranjeni iz te kategorije',
		'cat-a-lot-enter-name': 'Vnesi ime kategorije',
		'cat-a-lot-select': 'Izberi',
		'cat-a-lot-all': 'vse',
		'cat-a-lot-none': 'nobeno',
 
		'cat-a-lot-none-selected': 'Nobena datoteka ni bila izbrana!',
	});
}
//DO NOT CHANGE THE NEXT LINE 
if (mw.config.get('wgContentLanguage') !== 'sl') {
//DO NOT CHANGE THE PREVIOUS LINE
	mw.messages.set({
		'cat-a-lot-pref-save-summary': "[[Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot|Cat-a-lot]] posodablja uporabniške nastavitve",
		'cat-a-lot-summary-add': '[[Help:Cat-a-lot|Cat-a-lot]]: Dodajanje [[Category:$1]]',
		'cat-a-lot-summary-copy': '[[Help:Cat-a-lot|Cat-a-lot]]: Kopiranje iz [[Category:$1]] v [[Category:$2]]',
		'cat-a-lot-summary-move': '[[Help:Cat-a-lot|Cat-a-lot]]: Prestavitev iz [[Category:$1]] v [[Category:$2]]',
		'cat-a-lot-summary-remove': '[[Help:Cat-a-lot|Cat-a-lot]]: Odstranitev [[Category:$1]]'
	});
}
//</source>
✓ Done BTW. The proper place for such requests is the file's talk page. Template {{Edit request}} should be placed on the page. --jdx Re: 10:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Inquiry

I uploaded this image and it is nominated for deletion.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lloyd D. Newell 1.jpg

Can an admin please assist? Thanks in advance. Bisto~commonswiki (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Since another user uploaded File:Lloyd D. Newell.jpg to replace the above image, I've gone ahead and done the deletion you've requested. Daphne Lantier 23:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Issues of filereaming script

I’ve renamed some files due to spelling errors. In the renaming form also the file extension was changed from .tif to .tiff. Despite I’ve changed it back manually the files have got this different extension. On another try I got the error message the file would already exist, but entering this in the browser’s address line shows it does not. Because they are part of a series it would be fine, if someone could fix this (and perhaps also delete the recently created variations, though the latter is not that important). The files as they are named now:

About a similar problem a user complained in German Commons:Forum: The renaming form does convert file extensions in upper case into lower case (which I personally find better, too), but – that’s the issue – disallows to change back manually to upper case. Also these files are part of a series. Could some script versed admins look into this, please? — Speravir – 20:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jdx, Krd, Dschwen, and Zhuyifei1999, or whoelse? — Speravir – 22:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Made a mistake, hence separate ping @Zhuyifei1999. — Speravir – 22:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand the issue. Why should it have upper case file extensions? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any big deal, too, but: We should either deprecate upper case names at at (during the upload), or should not care at all and not change them surprisingly. (The mentioned other issue was about .ogg being changed to .oga for audio file. The same applies here, either check during upload or don't change later.) --Krd 07:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Krd and Zhuyifei1999: Some camera models and AFAIK also some OSes by default produce images with file extensions in uppercase. If these files get uploaded these extensions writings are preserved at least in some Wikipedias and I guess also here with Special:Upload (so a solution here in all upload forms wouldn’t be enough). While I’m fine with the behaviour to change to lower case by default on renaming it should be possible to overrule it. The issue Krd mentioned and my first issue above seem to be a bit different, though. — Speravir – 20:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Hashemite University

I think that there is a permission from the photographer, but there is no permission from the university itself according to Commons:Freedom of panorama#Jordan.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not applicable to the whole category; as long as the photographer releases copyright, there's no copyright-related problem with File:الجامعة-الهاشمية 02.jpg, for example. Nyttend (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Most of the images are derivative works per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Jordan --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I know, but how is that relevant to my comment? Nyttend (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Nyttend: I am talking about FOP: What do you think of these photos regarding FOP?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I told you already: that's not relevant to all of them. Nyttend (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Moving images to wikipedia? (continued)

A month ago, I asked at the Village Pump for assistance in moving some images from Category:Einar Jónsson at Commons (where they are unacceptable) to Wikipedia (where they are acceptable. I received no assistance, so I asked here at the administrator's noticeboard. Steinsplitter suggested I should nominate the images for deletion and I did so here, here, and here, carefully indicating that the images should be moved to wikipedia and how this could be done by an administrator. As per this conversation with Daphne Lantier, the images were deleted without being transferred to wikipedia. She suggested I might request undeletion, but I'm feeling rather frustrated by this process, and I'm hoping someone might agree to transfer the images before I request undeletion. Perhaps its time for me to apply for administrator privileges and do it myself? Thank you. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Script seems broken, sigh. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I can just transfer them manually. Do you want these three images to be transferred?--Ymblanter (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I suggested temporary restoration per UDEL as a kind of organized and monitored way of getting these transferred. Otherwise, who knows how long they would sit in the DR backlog? @Themightyquill: I'm sorry that you feel frustrated, but if it got you to run for adminship, that would be great! I think you'd make a great admin! Daphne Lantier 17:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    This is a standard practice that every administrator can restore deleted files for transfer to other projects for a reasonable time and then redelete them. We generally do not need DR for that. What is reasonable time depends of course, I personally try to keep it within five-ten minutes which I need to copy the file to my hard disk, upload it on the project, and copy to the project the original upload data.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
No hard feelings anyone - no one did anything wrong, it just didn't work out in an ideal way. There are twelve images included in those three linked DRs. I'd transfer them manually, but I can't now. Any help you can offer would be appreciated, Ymblanter. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: , if you transfer one of the images which have not yet been deleted, I can transfer the rest.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
As far as I know, all the images have been deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
You mean those still in the Category:Einar Jónsson do not qualify?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, I agree with Daphne that Themightyquill would be a great admin. Please do it Themightyquill :). Natuur12 (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I support Themightyquill be admin if he agree of course. -- Geagea (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

[outdent] Just a reminder to everyone — please do not move File:Bundesarchiv N 1572 Bild-1925-015, Polarfahrt Dampfer "München" , Museum Einar Jonssons.jpg, File:Einar Jónsson, myndhöggvari á vinnustofu sinni í Hnitbjörgum á Skólavörðuholti, 1923 - 1930.jpg, and File:Hnitbjorg loftmynd.jpg to en:wp; they're images related to Einar Jónsson, not images of his works, and as such we can retain them here. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I would not be so optimistic about the last file since there is no freedom of panorama in Iceland.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Good point, but that issue didn't occur to me. That image, like the others I mentioned, shouldn't be deleted for the reasons given for images of Einar's sculptures. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if any of the remaining sculpture images can be saved. I couldn't easily find dates for two of them when I made the other DRs, but I've just found them, and they are post-1923, so unfortunately ineligible to be moved to wikipedia - I've nominated them for deletion. The three labelled "Ingólfr Arnarson monument Einarr Jonsson 1907 1961" might be okay - they're a 1961 reproduction (by another artist) of a 1907 sculpture. I'm not sure how copyright rules would apply there. Anyone? Unfortunately, I think you are probably right about the image of the building. According to this page, he helped design the building himself and it "is sometimes said to be his biggest sculpture." That would certainly seem to suggest deletion. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
May be you could transfer the photo of the building, adding all categories properly, and I could then undelete and transfer the files which were deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: I was about to make that transfer, but I just noticed that the building was opened in June 1923, and en:Template:PD-US-1923-abroad requires that the work be "published" prior to 1 January 1923. So, I'm not sure it can be transferred to wikipedia, unless we can find evidence that the building was completed several months before it opened? - Themightyquill (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The US has freedom of panorama for buildings (and buildings weren't copyrightable until long after 1923); an image depicting nothing copyrightable except a building cannot attract US copyright, except of course for the photographer's copyright. There's no copyright-related reason why this image couldn't exist at en:wp. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Nyttend: With en:Template:FoP-USonly ? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Nyttend (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Themightyquill, Ymblanter: Looking up when those sculptures where made for an transfer to wikipedia is a waste of time. Iceland does have an freedom of panorama, it is just restrictive enough that files of buildings and artwork from Iceland can't be kept on commons. The icelandic copyright law states that states that buildings and artwork can be photographed, but the architect is entitled to enumeration if the picture is used for commercial purposes. As such, there is no need for an copyright check for an transfer to wikipedia, just slap an non-commercial use template on it and you are fine. See also Commons:FOP#Iceland.--Snaevar (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Snaevar: I was under the impression that Wikipedia did not allow the uploading of images for under "non-commercial use" licenses. I could upload them with fair-use licenses only if they are in use in an article. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think you are quite correct. The only difference between enWP’s definition of free content and ours is that we require conformity with the home country’s copyright laws, not only the USA’s. The FoP-USonly template seems quite apt for the situation here (assuming we’re talking about buildings, not sculptures). I suppose it could be made more helpful by adding a parameter with options to make the wording in the last box specific to the nature of the restriction in the country of origin, if those are susceptible to categorization; regardless, in this case it would be made clear that potential reusers should investigate how Icelandic law may apply to their intended use.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 Comment Just a reminder for everyone, {{Temporarily undeleted}} exists for flagging works undeleted to be moved. - Reventtalk 23:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
It is stalled, and after Daphne supported Jcb I do not feel like I should interfere with her deletions. I better invest my time to other projects. Sorry for that. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

My bot can move images to ukwiki, so it may move to other wikis too, but images should be undeleted for moving.--Anatoliy (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Help - Uploads Nominated for Deletion

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Discussion must be on deletion request page. The files were nominated for deletion on copyright grounds, but in my opinion they had severe scope problems too, because they could be used for humiliating depicted people. Deletion was right decision. If somebody wants in future you to prove ownership, then you must send OTRS-permission, but do not do that for these files: they must remain deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


Hello,

I'm new to all of this Wikipedia/Wikimedia editing stuff, so please forgive that I'm still trying to learn my way. I added three images to Wikimedia Commons a few days ago -- all of which I own the copyright to and took with my own camera/phone. I then added those to three pages on Wikipedia to which they were all relevant. They were subsequently nominated for deletion by a user who doubted that I own the copyright. But I do! How do I get those nominations for deletion removed, and what can/should I do to future uploads to indicate that I do in fact own the copyright in order to avoid these problems going forward?

Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dom Vadar (talk • contribs) 20:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

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


Regionalisation of Croatian Islands.jpg

Da 10 gg il prof. Josip Faričić dell'Università di Zara ha riempito il form di cessioni diritti dell'immagine in oggetto (mi ha girato copia della mail spedita a [email protected] e ne sono in possesso). E' un'immagine che ci sarà molto utile per le isole dalmate cui ci stiamo dedicando da mesi.. E' ancora in fase di lavorazione? o qualcosa è andato storto nell'upload..? (io sono comunque in possesso del file e potrei caricarlo nuovamente se necessario). Vi sarò grata se me ne darete notizia. Per avere questa immagine sto penando da mesi.. --Betta27 (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Betta27: File:Regionalisation of Croatian Islands.jpg --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: GRAZIE!! --Betta27 (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Mélanie Doutey.jpg

Please delete the differing version (overwritten, watermarked = unclear license). Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done De728631 (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

File migration

Hello. There is a disagreement between myself and FOX 52 over the update and migration of certain files. The discussion can be seen here. I am therefore requesting we do this a different way. Can an admin please do the following requests.

Please delete File:Roundel of Angola (1980-2011).svg, and then rename File:Roundel of Angola.svg to "Roundel of Angola (1980-2011)" without a redirect, so that I may upload the new roundel under "Roundel of Angola".
Please delete File:Roundel of Turkmenistan (1991-2011).svg, then rename File:Roundel of Turkmenistan.svg to "Roundel of Turkmenistan (1991-2011)" without a redirect, so that I may upload the new roundel under "Roundel of Turkmenistan".

I will make similar requests in the future when necessary. Fry1989 eh? 17:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I moved the files Fry but I won't delete the redirects yet since CommonsDelinker is still working on the rename. I'm not sure if I will break things if I delete the redirects now. If I forget about this request please nominate them for speedy deletion in some hours or so. Natuur12 (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I know that if you delete them now there will be dead links, but that would only be momentarily under I upload the new roundels under "Roundel of..." If Commons Delinker works on the rename, then I will have to start replacing the old roundels with the new ones on the related articles. Fry1989 eh? 19:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I stopped the file moving and deleted the redirects. Natuur12 (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very very much. Fry1989 eh? 20:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Permissions request

Could an admin please accept my request for AWB access? Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 04:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Daphne Lantier 06:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Update Template:Anchor

Please update Template:Anchor, so that more than one anchor can be used. If you copy the version from enwiki, en:Template:Anchor, you apparently also need to copy en:Module:Anchor (which itself needs 2 modules, but these are already present on Commons). — Speravir – 18:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, no one willing to do this simple copy&paste job (copyright could be stated in version history with permalink to copied version)?
Necessary changes afterwards; I would do this for all pages not locked for me:
— Speravir – 18:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Yaroslava Shvedova.JPG

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T161836

The actual picture file that should be shown at page File:Yaroslava Shvedova.JPG has somehow gone missing. Hopefully you can recover it from a server backup? Vinkje83 (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

That's strange. I know that the thumbnail server may sometimes have difficulties but I haven't seen a 404 error on the file server before. The image has been preserved elsewhere by Wikimedia mirrors like academic.ru but it would be best if we could somehow retrieve the original file. De728631 (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
This is probably the issue described in Commons:Village pump#Sudden file corruption, long after uploading and other places. See the linked Phabricator task phab:T161836. — Speravir – 21:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I have added this file to the list of examples over at the mentioned Phab task. Can't hurt to have as many examples as possible. GermanJoe (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
If somebody purged the file, old thumbtails would disappeared and new ones could not be generated because of the file inavailability. Few files have appeared again after few days, so maybe we just need to wait? Ankry (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
To my delight I just noticed that the picture has reappeared. Thank you, whoever did the recovery. Vinkje83 (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Foto Hahnemann-Haus Torgau

File:Hahnemann-Torgau.jpg Aus Wikimedia Commons, dem freien Medienarchiv

Als Rechteinhaber widersprechen wir der freien Nutzung des o. g. Bildes.

Kunst- und Kulturverein "Johann Kentmann" e.V. Pfarrstraße 3 04860 Torgau

Alle Anfragen sind an den Verein zu richten.

i.A. Jens Redmann

Hallo Jens. In wie fern seid ihr Rechteinhaber? Inhaber der Urheberrechte an dem Foto ist der Fotograf (solange er die ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechte nicht vertraglich an euren Verein abgetreten hat) – also laut eigener Angabe User:Tnemtsoni. Gibt es einen Grund, die Angabe Tnemtsonis anzuzweifeln? Siehe auch Panoramafreiheit. Grüße •  • hugarheimur 16:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Der Verein hat offenbar das Hahnemann-Haus entweder erworben oder betreibt es [4]. Wenn es sich bei diesem Widerspruch also nur um das Haus als solches handelt, ist er unbegründet, denn in Deutschland gilt Panoramafreiheit. Laut Gesetz darf jedermann Gebäude ohne Erlaubnis des Inhabers/Mieters usw. fotografieren, sofern die Aufnahme von einer öffentlich zugänglichen Stelle erfolgt. Das Bild File:Hahnemann-Torgau.jpg scheint von einer öffentlichen Straße aus gemacht worden zu sein, und nicht etwa auf dem Hinterhof des Hauses. De728631 (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Problems with US PD claims for post-1923 paintings by Piet Mondriaan

A number of these images, which were most likely uploaded or transferred from en-wiki after 2014, when 70 years had elapsed after the painter's death, have no US PD tags, or clearly invalid US PD claims or invalid licenses. For example:

The problem seems to involved many, if not most, of the post-1923 painting images. I suspect the majority, or all, of the images may turn out to be US-PD, but the information provided clearly cannot establish that. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

In general we consider files PD if copyright has expired in the source country. The whole idea of copyright convention is that countries recognize copyright from other countries, not that they add some imaginary copyright. Works from Piet Mondriaan are fine. We have the PMA 70 rule in the Nederlands, so his works became PD 1 January 2015. Jcb (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
But Commons:Public domain, the governing policy page, says in its lede that "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media
  • that are explicitly freely licensed, or
  • that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work."
Similarly, the relevant licensing tag states "This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or less. You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States".
Also, given that Mondrian spent roughly the last third of his life outside the Nederlands, with some notable work created in the United States, why would we treat the country of his birth as the "source country" for work created elsewhere? Also my understanding has been that because the Wikimedia servers are located/operated in the United States and under its jurisdiction, Commons cannot accept any content which is not free under US copyright law. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
None of the works mentioned above have notice. Only one even has a signature ("PM 30"), so if any of them were first published in the United States they would all be PD-no notice. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I need help against my copyrighted works being lifted, and posted at Wikimedia

Hello. I am not familiar with how to work on this site. I was referred to here by another administrator. My cartographic work is frequently lifted, redrawn and posted by various unethical individuals, some of them with unlimited gull, requiring me to allocate time and effort--never mind convincing your editors of the obvious and self-evindent plagiarism, to get these "knock offs" deleted. Below is a copy of an emailed communication that I am pasting here which would explain the issue. Please communicate with me at [email protected]

Michael Izady


From: To: Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 2:45 PM Subject: Re: Greetings from Wikimedia Commons


Hiya: All I can suggest is that you post this issue at Common's https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard and let the currently active admins give you an assist. I took care of all the obvious ones before and I'm under a really stiff work deadline for next 30 days. It's best if you initiate this - you will get better attention to your issue if you talk about it, than if I talk about you and it. I would make a big point about how they copied your colors and shapes exactly, since many of them are totally the same like "FARS" and MAKRAN". Cheers! Ellin


On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 18:58:34 0000 (UTC), "M.R. Izady" wrote:

Dear Ellin,

I still find many of my works copied and posted on Wikimedia. This is becoming a chronic event. Some of the thieves actually dispute the heinousness of their act, and the Wiki goes along with it. I do not have the time and energy to produce work--and then, fight thieves and plagiarizers. Many of the old appropriated work, despite their clear provenance are still kept on by Wiki for its own benefit, although it is has been established they are unauthorized copies and simplifications (plagiarized) versions of my more sophisticated work at Columbia University. And here is another, and the original

File:Middle East Cultural Historical Zones.svg - Wikimedia Commons

and the original

http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/MidEast_Cultural_Historical_Zones_sm.png

M. Izady

Link service: File:Middle East Cultural Historical Zones.svg.
@Ellin Beltz: your e-mail address can be seen here, does this matter for you? — Speravir – 21:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
It's all over the WWW anyway, but thanks for asking. These maps are a tough call, I do know that Jim closed at least one of these as kept. Others were obviously copied directly including the url in the corner and those were removed. I can certainly understand Mr. Izady's problem, but it requires more than me making decisions to help him in this complex of a situation. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: You should advise him about DMCA takedown notices. Those might be the easiest way to deal with the matter. - Reventtalk 04:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

As between these two:

http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/MidEast_Cultural_Historical_Zones_sm.png
File:Middle East Cultural Historical Zones.svg,

I do not see a copyright violation. The only thing that may have a copyright in either case is the base map and the base maps are clearly different. The locations of the various cultural zones shown is fact, not subject to copyright. The choice of map colors is also not subject to copyright. I think that M. Izady should consult with a lawyer before he tries to take this further and, in particular, before issuing a DMCA takedown notice. The penalties issuing a DMCA notice in cases where there is not actual infringement can be substantial. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: As regarding that particular image, I agree that there does not appear to be any copyright infringement (as it appears to be a depiction of historical facts) but it's claimed to be happening 'frequently'. As far as the DMCA, though, while IANAL (and he should indeed talk to one) there is no specific penalty for filing a notice when the 'complaining party' is simply wrong about if the use is allowed... a notice only alleges that the complaining penalty has a 'good faith belief' that it is not. What is sworn to under 'penalty of perjury', specifically, is "that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." - Reventtalk 11:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes and no. While I think that the actual likelihood of substantial damages in a case like this is low -- the damages are measured by the loss to the affected party, which would be both small and hard to quantify, under US law, one is responsible for ones actions. If he files a DMCA takedown notice -- even in good faith -- and there is no actual infringement, then he is liable for damages. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Pedido

Hola, solicito que se revise las imágenes que ha subido la cuenta Tessa24. Es muy posible que sean plagios. -- Elreysintrono (Su majestad) 18:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. I deleted obvious copyright violations speedily and nominated others for regular deletion. Taivo (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

User:CommonsDelinker/commands

This page is up to 250kb right now, and the oldest requests are from March 6. I don't know if/how/when these should be manually removed, otherwise I'd do it. Daphne Lantier 19:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Steinsplitter noted that the bot is broken... Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@Josve05a: Thanks. @Steinsplitter: Any idea why the bot still processes category move commands, but nothing else? The page is almost up to 300kb now. Pretty soon category moves are going to be a pain to add to the page. Maybe we can make it up to 1mb ... Daphne Lantier 22:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I gave a look and found two issues: There was a empty row in the db which caused problems and no account was crated on a few wikis (autocreate failed) which caused Delinker to crash (failed login). Delinker is currently recovering/editing, but there are ~9500 edits in the queue so it might take a while until the requests at User:CommonsDelinker/commands are getting processed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Deleted File is still accessible

Access Link, Deleted Discussion is here. How its possible to make a deep link like this..? Is it made by any tools available to admins or its a normal behavior.? - ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually this deeplink goes to en:File:Camello y campamento, Al Bastakiya, Dubai, 2009-11-23, DD 8878.jpg, at en.wikipedia. Jcb (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Link originated from domain wikimedia.com not wikipedia.com, So how the non free media is available on Wikimedia domains - ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The deeplink to the file is always at wikimedia.org, no at mather what project it is. The location is visible at the next part of the link: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/ - Jcb (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Got it!!!, This was a bit confused state while referring to the domain of wikimedia.com. So all the files are hosted on wikimedia.com but under various folders for En-wiki and commons as .wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/ - ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Wichlaugh

Mass spam of educational useless wood pictures, e. g. Category:Viehleite (Forest Hill), Pirna. Sockpuppet of banned User:Blackwhiteupl. Block him. --Frze > talk 03:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Daphne Lantier 04:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Sharbat Gula

Are these derivative works?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Wrong information

Hello.These files contain wrong information (Modern history with {{PD-old-70-1923}}).Please act.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Influx of files with embedded data (CSD#F9) – continuation 3 (was: Wikipedia Zero Abuse)

Previous discussion 1; Previous discussion 2; Previous discussion 3; Abuse filters: JPEG, PNG, GIF, large newbie uploads and Zero uploads; Bot Request (adminbot); Reports: Absurd overhead, Wrong Extension (zero pixel check) Related links added --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello all,

I am requesting that admins keep watch over Category:Files with suspect embedded data as people in certain countries have been taking advantage of Zero and using it for file transfers, which are usually in the form of a .pdf with the Adobe Acrobat logo or a .png with the Android logo. User:Revent has been leading the charge in managing this.

TJH2018talk 16:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on it. I have deleted a few dozens of them in the past few days. Jcb (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Pinging some possibly interested admins: @Storkk, Jdx, and Ronhjones: --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for heads up - I see user:Embedded Data Bot has suddenly been busy (after 6 weeks of no activity, it's deleted 16 files) - thankfully we have that and the various edit filters now, so it won't be as bad as last time. Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ronhjones, Jcb, Jdx, and Revent: When you have time, please monitor Special:MIMESearch/image/webp. I haven't coded the webp module for the bot yet, but I checked the logs and see a ton of webp uploads. The first one I check closely has two files embedded in an rar. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Will do. Jcb (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing it out. I just have deleted three such files, two of them 480×480 px and size 100  MiB. . Anyway, please code the module ASAP. --jdx Re: 18:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
They are now switching to TIF files, see e.g. File:Monsieur.tif - Jcb (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: Embedded Data Bot doesn't detect the embedded data in TIFFs...TJH2018talk 21:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm aware of it. Will hopefully finish the coding by Monday. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999 and Jcb: FYI, I've created Special:AbuseFilter/175 in order to tag suspected WEBP/TIFF files. Nothing sophisticated, but works good. --jdx Re: 10:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I just added webp support to the bot. Will work on TIFF --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Also added WebP to AF 166, and checking the logs of the bot I immediately see File:فلم_أنمي_رائع.xcf. Xcf is not supported by the bot either :( --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
XCF support added hopefully. Idek why it works --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
TIFF support added hopefully. There may be false positives with so many TIFF extensions out there. (NEF, DNG, etc.). File:14-01-10-tbh-260-katarina-witt.NEF.tif for instance, will be a false positive, but File:Logo_ZILLI.tif will pass. According to my tests the bot is currently able to accurately find the RAR archive inside File:Monsieur.tif, File:Nona.tiff, File:Windows.tif. I haven't tested other files. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Do we have a false positive at File:Grateley Station West Towards East.jpg? Also the bot seems to double tag since yesterday. Jcb (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems like clear false positive to me. You can find more on Special:Contributions/Embedded Data Bot, usually these are photos taken with some Olympus and Canon IXUS cameras. Also I confirm double tagging by the bot – I was about to report it. --jdx Re: 02:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Double tagging is caused my an extra RC process in tools-exec-1416 when there is already one in tools-exec-1404, not sure why. I'll killed both and restarted it. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Why are File:14-01-10-tbh-260-katarina-witt.NEF.tif (4KB/pixel) or File:Logo ZILLI.tif (10KB/pixel) so big? I don't see anything in GIMP that would justify it. Dispenser (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The description for the Katarina Witt image says that the file is actually in raw image data format (NEF = Nikon Electronic Format) but was renamed to TIF. That should be the reason for its size. I have no idea about the Zilli logo though. De728631 (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
The first file, according to the description, is a RAW file (Nikon's NEF in this case) uploaded as a TIFF file. The uploader is Ralf Roletschek, so there is no reason to doubt it. Regarding the second file, I bet that most of it's size is metadata and other crap added by Adobe Photoshop. --jdx Re: 20:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi all. If you find a user you suspect is gaming the system, please place their talk page into Category:Users suspected of abusing Wikipedia Zero. Thanks! TJH2018talk 22:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI: Commons:Bots/Requests/Embedded Data Bot (alteration) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

PDF seems to be the new tool of choice now. De728631 (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Solllier.png, data embedding is now recursive, and I updated its algorithm just now to account for this change :/ --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: How to understand bot's messages? E.g. in case of the example file is it "a RAR inside a PDF inside a PNG" or "a RAR inside a PDF inside a PNG inside a PNG"? --jdx Re: 05:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
It's a png then png then pdf then rar, concatenated. There may be more layers though; the bot cannot distinguish between multiple layers of some formats, including PDFs. And it will also halt parsing once it sees any format not accepted on Commons, including Rar, and they shall be subject to deletion. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Zhuyifei1999: MIDI support is needed immediately, e.g. Special:DeletedContributions/Sanji.ken. See also the log of AF's rule #166. --jdx Re: 13:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I have 0 time left for coding this today. I'll see if I can work on it tomorrow --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I'll try spare 10 mins for this. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done live --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jdx: File:Goood.djvu, idk how this is done :/ --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I've updated Absurd overhead report with the MIME detection library from Embedded Data Bot. Apparently, we missed File:Tmp 7542-starrfer-1743295939.png which I cannot open with 7z. Dispenser (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Revdeleted. Though, if you still have the file, try copying the data from the specified offset. Unrar for me gives (fwiw, I used filenames 1 & 2 for the part before & after the offset):
UNRAR 5.30 beta 2 freeware      Copyright (c) 1993-2015 Alexander Roshal

Archive: 2
Details: RAR 4

 Attributes      Size     Date    Time   Name
----------- ---------  ---------- -----  ----
    ..A....   9458428  2011-01-22 06:59  Activar Windows 7/despues éste y listo!.eXe
    ..A....   9061366  2011-01-22 07:00  Activar Windows 7/despues éste y listo!.rar
    ..AD...         0  2011-10-27 18:03  Activar Windows 7
----------- ---------  ---------- -----  ----
             18519794                    3
--Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI

I started a proposal to improve the communication between the uploader and patrollers/admins. Jee 05:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Seal of the Turkish Navy.svg

Can someone please explain what happened to this file? It used to be in proper SVG condition, and after several DR discussions was deemed PD. It now appears that SVG was deleted and a PNG was uploaded to Wikipedia under a non-free rationale. However I can't seem to find any logs on Commons regarding it's deletion. Fry1989 eh? 18:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I seem to have forgotten that discussion. Thanks. 19:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 Comment I reverted it to the original version, and deleted the bloated one. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Yann: I don't know what was in "the bloated one" you deleted, but this one is not a real SVG file. It's a binary raster graphic (probably en:File:Seal of the Turkish Navy.png) embedded in some SVG code. If the "bloated one" was actually vector graphics, that should probably be restored. Otherwise it would make more sense to delete this SVG and use en:File:Seal of the Turkish Navy.png instead – assuming it's OK copyright wise. --El Grafo (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
The deleted file was the same, but with a bloated PNG inside. Yann (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

File:East Ridgecrest, CA.jpg

Please delete the differing version (overwritten, unclear license). Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Vads - painting

Hi there. I was wondering whether someone could help me upload this picture. Its mostly because I have no idea which tag I have to choose. Thanks much in advance, - LouisAragon (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Use {{PD-old-100-1923}}. Thanks, ★ Poké95 05:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

'No permission since' and 'no source since' taggings

Over the past years, the 'no permission since' and 'no source since' taggings have often brought our most active admins into trouble. The main problem with those taggings is that the processing admin has to guess what the exact reason is for the tag, as opposed to a regular DR, where nominator has to tell what the problem is. At this moment, the backlog on regular DRs is approaching zero, so the 'no permission since' and 'no source since' tags are no longer faster than a regular DR. Also closing a regular DR seem hardly more time consuming to me than handling a no permission/source since tag. I have proposed at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#No_permission_and_no_source_tags to abandon these two tags completely and always use a regular DR instead (or {copyvio} for obvious cases of copyright violation). Till now, nobody has objected to this proposal, but just a few admins have responded so far. It would be helpful if more admins would take part in the discussion, so that we may find a consensus. Jcb (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Why "convert to DR" is disabled in Copyvio and Speedydelete?

I wonder why "convert to DR" is disabled in {{Copyvio}} and {{Speedydelete}}? I can see them in their source. Jee 16:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure it isn't a caching problem on your computer? I was able to use the conversion less than an hour ago, see File:Parque Nacional de Białowieża - Repelente de mosquitos (33659596515).jpg. Jcb (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
It may be a caching problem. I'm seeing it now. Thanks. Jee 16:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio

Please nuke the photos uploaded by this user, they're copied from different sites, see different watermarks here and here. Thanks, --Mihai (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done I warned the user and deleted all his/her uploads. Taivo (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

malfunctioning deletion tool

Help:Gadget-autodel.js hasn't worked for me for the last few days. This tool comes in handy when you have 20 empty categories to delete, and you don't want to have to delete them slowly one by one. Here's the error message I get:

Cannot read property 'match' of undefined TypeError

I've been trying to use it on Category:Other speedy deletions to get rid of numerous empty maintenance categories. Thanks. Daphne Lantier 02:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: @Krd: @Zhuyifei1999: I tried this in Firefox and got this error:

h is undefined TypeError @line291

The above error I reported yesterday is from Chrome. There are currently 90 empty maintenance categories in Category:Other speedy deletions awaiting deletion. Without Help:Gadget-autodel.js, the only option is to delete these one by one, which would require a lot of time. Any help you guys could offer would be greatly appreciated. Daphne Lantier 01:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Searching for h.match in MediaWiki:Gadget-autodel.js I find two lines, both have h as attribute 'href' of an <a> element. Executing $('#mw-content-text').find('a').each(function(i, el) { console.log(el) }) in browser console I fine one element that does not define such attribute: <a class="mw-selflink selflink">100 others</a>. So:
✓ Done forced selection to only those with an 'href' attribute using has attribute selector. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: Yep, everything's back to normal and working! Thanks for taking the time. I really appreciate it. Daphne Lantier 08:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I Would like to have images I uploaded removed

I would like to have images I own and uploaded removed please. The files are 1, 2, 3, and 4. They used on my user page on Wikipedia and I have retired. I would like them removed as they do have my children in them. WarMachineWildThing (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Daphne Lantier 08:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Dimmando

All the images provided by User:Dimmando in this Wikipedia article are dubious copyright in my opinion. They are claimed to be "own work" but look much more like drawings from textbooks to me. The sudden change in artistic style halfway through the article is particularly suspicious. I can't positively prove where the images did come from, but the offline Russian sources of the article seem favourite.

I asked the user to clarify on 25 March but have had no response. SpinningSpark 18:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Richard E. Byrd Historic Monument

Are these derivative works or there are FOP?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: That's actually an interesting question, and you should probably at COM:VPC. My opinion, however....it's a work by an American artist who died in 2003, but McMurdo Station (where it is located) is in the part of Antarctica claimed by New Zealand. Since New Zealand has FOP for 3D works, it would seem to be okay. Since the statue was apparently erected in 1965, the US would not consider it to be copyrighted, either, unless there is a copyright notice somewhere on it. Should be fine.
Just to be clear, a photo taken under FOP is, technically, a derivative work, it's just one that's not copyright infringement (it's a permitted use, by law, just like fair use would be). - Reventtalk 19:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Really strange case. New Zealand claim to part of Antarctica is not internationally recognized. McMurdo is American polar station. Let's imagine, that we ask from polar station personnel: do you live by New Zealand law? Probably they will answer: no, we live by US law. But next question: maybe the sculpture is work of US government, that case it is not copyrighted? Taivo (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Taivo: According to categories, The sculptor is Category:Felix de Weldon who died in 2003.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but maybe the sculpture was ordered and paid by US government? Taivo (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:FOP by country

This category has categories of files not allowed under Wikimedia Commons licensing policy.Should we create a subcategoriey about countries that do not have FOP (depending on "not" templates) to delete these images?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You have discuss it on the relevant talkpage, this page (AN) is for stuff which require administrator assistance. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: Do you see that I create a category and then ask to review and delete images?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
You should follow the regular process by crating a DR if a file is unfree per FOP. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Mass deletion requests for FOP are a bad idea anyway because every such image needs to be examined carefully and individually. De728631 (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Gurudas Kamat.jpeg

Please delete the differing version (overwritten, license may need OTRS). GermanJoe (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done De728631 (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Mass message to former participants of WLE Germany

Could an admin please send a message to the discussion pages of all participants of WLE Germany in the last two years? Text can be found at User:Blech/WLE2017Rundschreiben, a consolidated list of user names (no duplicates) under User:Blech/WLENamen15und16. I tried to prepare as much as possible. If you should find an error, please fix it. --Blech (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done --Didym (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Vielen Dank. --Blech (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Mass deletion attempt ongoing by Canopus Grandiflora

Canopus Grandiflora appears to be trying to nominate for deletion every image of every building in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. This is crazy and wildly disruptive – his nominations include, for instance, pictures of some of the most famous buildings in the world, used across dozens of wikis. Deleting such images would cause widespread disruption, as there would be no possible replacements, and it would severely harm Wikipedia's objective of providing high-quality and informative articles. Taken to its logical extreme, which Canopus Grandiflora seems to be doing, it would mean we couldn't have any images of any buildings from either country.

I also note that Canopus Grandiflora is supposedly a new user (created in Dec 2016) but his first contributions suggests very strongly that this is a returning (perhaps previously blocked?) user. If he has a previous user account, which looks very likely to me, he should disclose it. Prioryman (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It is well established that Freedom of Panorama is not okay in Saudi Arabia as well as United Arab Emirates. "Pictures of some of the most famous buildings in the world" can not be kept on Commons if the judicial law does not allow photographic reproduction of architecture structures. If the user:prioryman has any valid point to say why those photos should be kept on Commons despite the fact that FoP is not okay, please tell us. Note that usage of these images on various projects is not a valid reason not to remove these photos from Commons. Besides, there exists Fair Use, if those projects needs those files. And I have not nominated some of the files because of de minimis and threshold of originality. So please refrain from commenting that it would mean we couldn't have any images of any buildings from either country.
It is really selfish to think only about Wikipedia, in my opinion. "severely harm Wikipedia's objective of providing high-quality and informative articles". That is the objective each Wikimedia projects share but we have to respect the judicial laws.--Canopus Grandiflora 23:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Let me point out what you've got wrong here. While there may be no FoP in Saudi Arabia, the law protecting architectural copyrights obviously doesn't apply to old buildings. As Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Saudi Arabia says, "protection period for applied art (handcrafted or manufactured) and photographs shall be twenty five years of the date of publication". There is no copyright to be protected if the applied art object – building in this case – is over 25 years old. But here, for example, you've nominated for deletion an image of a building that is over 2,000 years old and has never been subject to copyright. You're nominating indiscriminately without any consideration for whether the images actually might have a copyright problem. Freedom of panorama does not mean that any image of any building in a non-FoP country may violate someone's copyright. Prioryman (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of those images are not OK. Marcus Cyron (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
That building was renovated, and thus, there was a design change. If you still think that does not restore the counter, an admin will {{Speedy keep}} the image. But also take into consideration that there are other buildings and or mosque which is also to be considered for FoP. In short, those files needs a formal discussion.--Canopus Grandiflora 00:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Renovated in 1629 [5]: "The Kaaba's appearance has not changed since then." 1629 was approximately 300 years before Saudi Arabia even existed, let alone its copyright law. Frankly you're just wasting people's time making specious arguments like that. Prioryman (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Second, considering the "heavy rains and flooding in 1629" and the renovation, the source cited by Wikipedia says it was renovated then, it does not say it was never renovated again." The Kaaba's appearance has not changed since then." is not cited on Wikipedia. While there are sources which claitells that parts of Kaaba were renovated in the later half of the nineteenth century. If you have problems with the Kaaba related files, address to their nomination page rather than addressing it here. And as far as my rationale regarding FoP is concerned, Commons says (COM:FoP) that in XYZ country it is okay/not okay--Canopus Grandiflora

Please pay attention to the following bolded wording from the very first paragraph of Commons:Freedom of panorama: "In almost all countries, art, architecture, and other works are protected by copyright for a specified period. That means any photograph taken of such a work during the copyright period is a derivative work, provided (under US law) that the photograph displays the quantum of originality required for copyright protection of a derivative work." In other words, copyright in architecture does not last forever. It is only protected for a specified period and only if a photo is taken during that period is it considered a derivative work. You seem to be under the misapprehension that any photograph of any building in a non-FoP country is a derivative work. This is not the case.
Your sole reason for nominating for deletion images of buildings in Saudi Arabia is "Freedom of panorama is not okay in Saudi Arabia." This is a pathetically inadequate justification. It is perfectly OK provided that that the building depicted is not protected by copyright. You're ignoring the fact that copyright obtains for a limited period only. As a matter of practicality, as Saudi law protects works of applied art for only 25 years, any building constructed there before 1992 is not covered by copyright. If you had stated that as your justification and confined yourself to buildings demonstrably newer than 1992, you would be on stronger ground, but right now your justification is basically bogus and grossly misapplied when you try to slap it on, for instance, images of the Kaaba. Prioryman (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Any significant design change in the structure due to renovation resets the counter. So, why am I listed on this page, if only a portion of my nomination lies in the grey area? Why is the UAE related FoP case nominations even listed here?--Canopus Grandiflora 00:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Because I don't think it's adequate for you to list as your justification "Freedom of panorama is not okay in <x>". It's lazy and untrue. As I've pointed out, it is okay if the building depicted is not covered by copyright. You need to demonstrate, for each image that you nominate, that the building in question is covered by copyright, rather than just assuming it's so for everything that you nominate. Spamming deletion nominations with indiscriminate minimal justifications isn't acceptable. It leads to inanities such as nominating for deletion images of centuries-old buildings, because you don't appear to understand that copyright expires after a time and in some cases copyright may never have applied in the first place. Prioryman (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Because you think, I should include time stamp for every nomination. Other stuff exists — there are other editors who nominate images without mentioning when there was a design change in the structure. Consider all of my nomination FOR NON-SIMILAR structures. How many of them really needs a time stamp?
As far as your comment "you don't appear to understand that copyright expires after a time" is concerned, I had nominated photos Parc des Princes and Juventus Stadium for deletion recently. I did not nominate San Siro for a reason because I am aware of the fact that copyright is not forever. I leave it for the admins for speedy kept, discuss and/or keep/delete those files.--Canopus Grandiflora 01:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Canopus Grandiflora, while some DRs are OK, some are not OK, so please be careful. In addition, it would be useful that you provide the date at which the images can be restored. As mentioned in several DRs, it seems to be 25 years after the building construction. That would also make your cases much stronger. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
@Yann: I understand that there were flaws in the batch of DR's this time. I have added dates for the next set of nominations. --Canopus Grandiflora 19:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 Comment Somewhat off-topic 'here', but the Kabaa was completely reconstructed in 1996. - Reventtalk 12:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 Comment Agree to Prioryman arguments. Plus Canopus Grandiflora not only run deletion campaign on building images in Saudi Arabia and UEA under FoP basis, but also in Indonesia. Carelessly targeting countries with not OK FoP status without examining law details and exceptions is not right. This is the example the Istiqlal Mosque deletion request. According to Commons:Freedom of panorama#Indonesia "The state shall hold the copyright for works of popular culture that are commonly owned (public domain)." Istiqlal mosque is considered as one of national landmark or monument, therefore not a copyright or FoP infringement, thus a public domain. Plus I don't know if you all see a pattern, but mostly targeting mosques and Muslim majority countries buildings under FoP basis is kinda suspicious. Care to explain?Gunkarta (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Explanation: Well, the answer to "I don't know if you all see a pattern" is both yes and no. I nominated DW works for deletion in the beginning. Then I nominated files of Eiffel Tower with special lightings, then I nominated some files showing currency, which were copyrighted by the government, then I nominated football stadiums, and now, buildings in most of the middle east countries. If you are watching my contributions, and are only at the surface, this might feel like "targeting mosques and Muslim majority countries". Easy guess would be, most of the Gulf countries have laws against FoP. But even I do not know how to establish connection between Graffiti, Eiffel Tower, Currency, logos,football stadiums, Sri Lankan buildings, buildings in the middle east and South Korean towers.
@Revent: The 1996 reconstruction would affect the PD's counter, but since it is covered, and TOO can also be applied, I my nominations were not correct, I accept that.--Canopus Grandiflora 20:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@Canopus Grandiflora: I was simply being pedantic... from images, it does not appear that the reconstruction changed anything about the parts that are visible. - Reventtalk 20:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
That is the thing. TOO for a simple design, de minimis for only a fraction of kaaba's walls visible, and it being covered prevents deletion.--Canopus Grandiflora 20:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No admin action needed. This is starting to look like a honey pot. Yann (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Kiwi administrators: request for judgments from all available New Zealand administrators

No kiwi is needed for this case

Re: deleted Commons image File:Silver Fern Sunburn.png

Kia ora,

I respectfully request that you add your judgment to my image undeletion request for File:Silver Fern Sunburn.png at Commons:Undeletion_requests.

Kind regards,

--NZ Flag Maven (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, There is no way that you can restrict other admins to take part in this discussion. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Yann: True, but although I certainly cannot forbid non-kiwi administrators from taking part in the discussion, there is nothing to stop me from politely asking non-kiwi administrators to recuse themselves from the judgment panel. The matter to be decided is, after all, only relevant to New Zealand and to New Zealanders.

--NZ Flag Maven (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

We usually delete fake flags when not in use. To blow up a DR to 21 kilobytes of this is quite ridiculous. The request that only Kiwi's should participate in the UDR is way out of line of course and can't be seriously considered. Jcb (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

So the Dutch administrator who deleted my image file feels compelled to weigh in here as well, and of course also at the undeletion request page, but rather than attempting to justify her or his decision with any actual reasoning derived from the 'Commons:Project scope' page at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope, instead chooses invective and mockery. Not simply a 'proposed' flag design but a 'fake' one, and by the decree of Jcb, obviously inferior to all other proposed flag designs throughout all of Commons. She or he infers that I should be ashamed of myself for exercising my right to request an undeletion of my image file, because, oh my, kilobytes, how exorbitant, at least in the middle of the previous century, and she or he further punctuates that speciousness with a cutesy captioned photo of kiwifruit, as if to say, "Oh, New Zealanders, surely you will join me in deriding this unworthy image uploader, whose request for your consideration should not be countenanced". I can only hope that any kiwi administrators who twig to my request here will be independent enough to make up their own minds on the issue, rather than letting Jcb's pretentiousness decide it for them.

--NZ Flag Maven (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

'Proposed' flags not part of referendums have always been deleted per 'COM:NOTSCOPE'. Maybe the only time they would be kept is if a country is/was voting on said flags and are under a free use license. I've looked at the 'File:Silver Fern Sunburn.png' elsewhere and agree with the deletion, the flag wasn't part of the NZ flag referendum and it isn't in scope with the project. Sorry. Bidgee (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Campaign:wle-lv

Dear administrators, could you please create Campaign:wle-lv with this code User:Voll/3? Thank you so much. --Voll (talk) 08:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Ocultar ediciones

Ocultar las ediciones 240958469 y 240958469 contienen datos personales (NIF). --Jcfidy (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done first version because contains personal data. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Thailand — Overstay fine for 2 days.jpg

Please delete the [first] and second upload as it shows my complete name. Thank you! --Mattes (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

File:도.jpg: Copyvio?

The file is declared "own work", but it looks somehow professional and is probably a download from pinterest. --Jkbw (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done I deleted speedily both contributions of Cinthianina (talk · contribs): small photos without metadata, found multiple times in internet. If they are really own work, then OTRS-permission is needed. Taivo (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

UDR in German

Hi, Can a German speaking admin close the 3 pending requests with a discussion in German please? Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done I've found two pending requests in German and I've closed both of them. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
AFBorchert: Thanks. One more here: COM:UDR#File:Aktivistin.ch ZVV Preisaufschlag für Männer.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done Sorry for having missed that one, but it is now closed as well. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. De728631 (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

These 3 PDM images

Dear Admins or trusted users,

If you believe that these 3 PDM images below can be passed, please pass them. They come from the flickr account of the Office of the Prime Minister of Dominica. Can Commons accept these images on a PDM license? If not, please file a DR.

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. These were obvious copyvios taken from a non-free YouTube video [6]. So I have deleted them without a DR. De728631 (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Амор Фати

File:Михаил Рева.jpg Third time cv. --Frze > talk 15:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 Comment This is not the right place. File deleted, last warning. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Ask for fulfilment of this edit request

It would be cool if anybody could fulfil this edit request: MediaWiki talk:AddWikidata.js#Please add Template:Category definition: Object! Thanks in advance, --Marsupium (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done by Zhuyifei1999. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Updating a logo on a company page

Hello,

en:Frog Design Inc. This company page has an old logo - I have uploaded the new logo using the "upload file" process but not sure how to get it updated on the page - hopefully someone can help?

Many Thanks, frogMarketing :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogmarketing (talk • contribs) 02:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done I updated the logo. Taivo (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Soth Polin

Hi, I don't understand why you deleted the pictures on Soth Polin's page. There were pictures of old newspapers and old book covers before the Khmer Rouge (1975; the KR destroyed everything, all books, all newspapers, they killed 90% of the writers). There is no copyright holders. Could you help me to resolve this problem ? I'm trying to do my best to write the Wikipedia pages about Cambodian literature and I just received warning. I'm very tired of it. This pictures has free, they don't belong to anybody. So what's the problem ? CM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domrey sar (talk • contribs) 11:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This has been explained to you at Commons:Requests for undeletion#Current_requests. There is no need to ask here as well, so please keep the discussion in one place and reply over there. De728631 (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

deleted category

please restore Category:Protected landscape areas in Landkreis Waldshut, it is not longer empty. already asked admin JuTa, but seems inactive. Holger1959 (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Mark a page for translation

Hello, I have fixed the translation tags. Please someone check and mark this WLE2017Nepal page for translation. Thank you. — TBhagat (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Daphne Lantier 05:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

File:John Gormley TD, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.jpg

Please delete the differing version (overwritten, likely copyvio). Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Taivo (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Coronation.jpg

Please delete the differing misplaced version (unlikely "own work" claim, possibly copyrighted). Separate file upload File:Coronation 1.jpg under new name nominated for deletion. GermanJoe (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Taivo (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Ubiystvo Страница 294 (21764377066).jpg

Derar Admins,

Is this image of a Russian document without a license a PD document. It concerns the shooting of Tsar Nicholas II according tp a category attached to it. Perhaps it can be passed even though the license is PDM. If not, it has to be deleted. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. I'll pass it. Work of Russian government. Taivo (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
As an independent admin with no conflict of interest to Colin and Fae's on-going feud, I am endorsing MichaelMaggs's conclusions before this discussion gets further out of hand. Fae, Colin: Please review Michael's conclusions before proceeding to edit. You are both invited to stay away from each other before one or both of you are blocked or a non-voluntary interaction ban is imposed. Let's not forget we are here to contribute to the project. ~riley (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


Hounding by Colin

I have been forced to create this thread, after requests by MichaelMaggs and odder that I reply to a complaint by Colin on-wiki.

Background
  1. 2015 November, Admin noticeboard "Colin's use of anti-LGBT language", Archive
  2. 2016 June, Admin noticeboard "Colin", Archive
  3. 2016 June, Bureaucrat noticeboard "'crat action requested", Archive
  4. 2016 November, Admin noticeboard "Pathological dishonesty" Archive
  5. 2016 December, Admin noticeboard "Conduct of User:Colin", Archive
  6. 2017 April, MichaelMaggs user talk page "Attack page", User_talk:MichaelMaggs#Attack_page

As per my request in June 2016 (link 2): "With respect to Colin's targeted sarcasm and ad hominem attacks intended to create a hostile environment, please refer to User_talk:Fæ/2016#Colin, where after over two years of being hounded I stated "Go away, you are obsessed with me, I find it creepy and it is unwanted attention." I had hoped that after a direct request for his long history of personal attacks and deeply unpleasant public hounding to end, he might back off or tone it down. I do not believe that anything Colin has written here furthers the aims of this project or aids our collegiate work."

I have twice this year been forced to remind others of that statement after being called out by my name in discussions by Colin, discussions where Colin was not a part but decided to express views and expect my answers. There can be no doubt that Colin is fully aware that I am not going to reply to any question they raise. In these circumstances this is a continuation of the same creepy pattern of hounding and harassment.

I do not accept Colin's claim of being a victim, despite their many protests of being a victim of abuse, or that I have a mental illness, or that my request made in 2016 that Colin should leave me alone and cease their hounding of my account is an "attack page". It is extremely clear by now for any reader who the instigator is, and that this is not an argument, as none can exist with only one party hounding the other.

I am asking that Colin cease pinging me, making false claims about me, or finding excuses to engage with me, despite never getting any reply from me.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

 Info I asked Fae to reply on my user page to a complaint made there by Colin. Odder (who was also pinged) has likewise asked for a response. While I've no objection to Fae replying here I would ask that editors don't immediately dive in and inflame the situation by re-starting and repeating the lengthy, bad-tempered arguments that have previously taken place. Please keep it mellow and give everyone involved space to think for a few days. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@MichaelMaggs: , please remove the false assertion "baseless allegations of homophobia" from your user talk page. As per the discussion in June 2016 where this false allegation was repeated several times without any evidence, this never happened. It is only an issue because Colin keeps on saying it and then plays the victim card. I would like to see you remove this with urgency as it is defamatory and personally damaging. --Fæ (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
You are not forced to reply, you are requested. You are not said that "hey Fæ, reply or you will be blocked". You are said "I would please (my bold) like Fæ to respond to this..". Stop twisting such situations like you are doing here. And here you go, unnecessarily involving all the admins here to respond again to another drama. I am kindly asking you at this start to withdraw your request, it will just result to a boomerang against you and your conflict with Colin won't be resolved through this. Thanks, ★ Poké95 23:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Another ridiculous thing. How background items 3 and 5 are connected to the "hounding" by Colin? You are clearly not prepared here Fæ, admit it. What I am seeing here now is that you want to turn Commons to a drama battleground. ★ Poké95 05:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No, this a forced statement, I did not want to make any reply on-wiki, I still do not. MichaelMaggs and odder have been selected by Colin to be advocates, as stated on MichaelMaggs' talk page because similar complaints on AN and BN did not get the outcomes they were hoping for. I contacted MichaelMaggs by email pointing out their obvious conflict of interest, based on the fact that I have a large notice at the top of my page asking "if you are connected to the UK Chapter, please email me rather than writing on-wiki or on this page". This notice exists for good reason and has been there since September 2015. I am a previous Chair of the UK Chapter and Michael is the current Chair of the UK Chapter, sadly MichaelMaggs ignored that notice and by email has refused to recognize their conflict of interest, despite having access to privileged information about me.

odder has previously involved themselves in complaints against me by Colin, and has insisted that answers must be given, so I am aware that simply ignoring MichaelMaggs' request would be made a confrontational issue.

It would be inappropriate for a complaint that has made serious and untrue allegations about me to be handled by a process that MichaelMaggs and odder are apparently making up as they go along. If there is any action to be taken here (and I have not asked for any) it should be subject to scrutiny by our community and follow the conventional dispute resolution processes.

I agree, these repeated complaints by Colin do make Commons into a battleground. I would much rather be able to continue with my volunteer projects in a non-hostile environment. Achieving that is as simple as Colin leaving me alone as I have requested repeatedly for a very long time now and in theory should require no action by anyone else to make happen. --Fæ (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

 Comment User A is free to respond or criticize any argument made by user B. Then user B is free to respond to it or ignore. Here what I see is user B wants that user A should not respond or criticize any argument made by user B. And when it happens, instead of responding or ignoring it, user B repeatedly making a statement "Should anyone be confused as to why I am not engaging in this section, please refer to my statement at <somewhere>." This tempts user A to make some angry response and may fall in troubles. Chances that some inexperienced admins like the White Cat failed to understand this trap and take action against user A. Sorry; this no longer works in Commons. Jee 05:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Jkadavoor, I firmly assert that I have been hounded for a couple of years, the evidence is in the background links above. Every volunteer on this project can expect to contribute in a non-hostile environment. Colin is free to "respond or criticize any argument", sure, however choosing to follow my comments in discussions and pointedly asking me questions, is continued deliberate hounding in the context of my many requests to be left alone. Colin is fully aware that I shall not reply to any question they ask, making the questions disruptive in those unrelated discussions even if they appear innocuous for any reader not understanding this history. --Fæ (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
See, both of you are very active in the main discussion forums here. We can't ask any of you not to participate in a discussion where other is already commented. Of course, there can be some conflict of opinions and comets that may look like disturbing. But what we can do as a matured community is to consider them as much as genuine. If it is not possible, we are always free to ignore it. But deliberately making a statement like "Should anyone be confused as to why I am not engaging in this section, please refer to my statement at <somewhere>" is indeed a counter-attack. If someone ignore my comments, I'm fine with it. But if someone started making this type of statements under my every comment, I too may have loose my control. (This is my understanding about the current situation. I'm happy to change my stand if someone can convince me in other way.) Jee 06:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
As said, Colin is free to "respond or criticize any argument". That can be done without pointedly asking me questions that I am never going to answer.--Fæ (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Poké, Jee, there was no need to start up discussions here, especially after my request above. That is not helpful; it is obvious that it will inflame the situation, and re-start all the old arguments. I repeat: please give everyone involved space to think for a few days. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Please remove the defamatory and false "baseless allegations of homophobia" from your talk page.
Don't forget to post another notice for when you think the community should be able to speak if they have views. If it gets archived, then I'll presume there is nothing more to say. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

A few words

This comes a bit late, however I wasn't previously able to spend much time on-wiki after already taking a few hours to read all the relevant material (ie. last night and this morning). First of all, I have to say that I find the attitude demonstrated by @Fæ directly above utterly reprehensible; I cannot recall seeing this kind of hostility from anyone on this project for quite some time.

However, let's get back to the subject at hand. There are multiple edits by Fæ that directly or subtly accuse Colin of homophobia without so much as a shred of evidence—and that's not a statement of opinion, but of fact. 1, 2, 3 and, in particular, 4 are just some examples of this. There is no doubt in my mind that to write—and these are direct quotes, however italic is mine—"Colin is misusing Commons to harass people based on them as a person, "especially myself as a known openly gay man" (…) "allowing and encouraging this type of behaviour on Commons is an embarassment to the project and makes it appear an unsafe space for future contributors" is a thinly-veiled accusation of homophobia. If Fæ hadn't meant that as a smear against Colin, then they simply would have ommitted those parts in bold. Worded like that, this sentence is meant to suggest that Colin dislikes Fæ for the simple reason of them being gay rather than, say, because Colin finds Fæ annoying, and that Colin's dislike of Fæ and his demonstrations of that—again, remembering that in Fæ's mind, due to them being gay—make Commons an unsafe space for potential future gay contributors lead the reader to think that Colin might actually be disliking Fæ on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Fæ has been playing the gay victim card for years now, and it needs to stop. The fact is that Fæ has edited the title of the section from "AN/U" (started here) to "Colin" here, for what now appears to be want of a handy link to continue accusing Colin of homophobia, which he has been including in various unrelated discussion, and in particular over the past week or so. It's clear that Fæ is intentionally misrepresenting one of Colin's quotes from 2013 (!) to promote this accusation; he even writes "You (not me) deliberately injected the abusive use of anti-LGBT language into a discussion that had nothing to do with LGBT issues. It is easy to understand why you did that in response to an openly gay contributor. (again, underline is mine); I can see no other reason for including this part other than to imply that Colin "did that in response to an openly gay contributor" because he discriminates gay people.

In light of the above, I would like to propose that Fæ, at the very least, be asked to change the title of that section back to its original version as created by Colin, that he be cautioned not to change other user's messages without their explicit permission, and that they be asked to refrain from linking to this page to continue to accuse Colin of homophobia. Over to you guys, odder (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I have never made any allegation that anyone is homophobic, this is completely different to objecting to misusing anti-LGBT language directed at a very well known openly gay person, which in good faith nobody could credibly claim was a bizarre accident. None of the links demonstrate that allegation, in fact the only person ever claiming "homophobia" has been Colin. Neither have I introduced LGBT issues into a discussion with Colin, this has only ever been Colin doing so, check the facts and the order of events as they were well reviewed in past discussions. Stick to facts and evidence please, rather than unsupported claims about who plays which gay cards. Colin has repeatedly followed the successful strategy of hounding me for over inflated and sometimes fantasy transgressions, and then claiming to be a victim, often using offensive terms to enhance the appearance of this self-created victimhood - e.g. dropping in "bigot", "hatred", "homophobia", none of these are my words.
The remedy is simple. Colin can respect my requests to not be hounded, and cease pointedly asking me questions in discussions, when fully aware that I have not been responding for the last year and have stated more than once that I shall never respond. Sticking to this means I will never have to explain to others why questions in discussions are not being answered. This represents absolutely zero burden of effort for Colin, as they can continue to engage in any discussion and express views as they wish, just simply leave me out of it.
Colin is completely free to forget that I exist. Perhaps someone else can explain that fact more clearly than I can. --Fæ (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I just have this lovely bottle of Sake. Can I offer anyone involved something too drink? If not it might be a good time too call it a day and get some sleep. Natuur12 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

A few more words

The disruption caused by this issue (originally arising as a result of a dispute about a featured picture candidate back in 2013) has been immense. Dozens of editors have been involved and hundreds of hours of volunteer time have been wasted. No doubt only a few long-standing editors on Commons have much idea what this is about, and even fewer will have any desire to reiterate the unpleasantness of the past and to go over all of the old arguments yet again, as Fae has invited the community to do with the post above.

I consider the previous dispute to have been effectively concluded by an apology that Colin made on 21 November 2015, and Fae’s acceptance of his apology on 6 July 2016. The discussion on the Bureaucrats Noticeboard, brokered by Slaunger, is archived here, with Fae’s acceptance highlighted in green towards the bottom of the thread. Immediately under the box, Fae says “I have no intention of referring to it ever again, and will make every reasonable effort to avoid Colin on-wiki.” Further discussions were inconclusive, and the thread was eventually closed by Ellin Beltz.

The current issue

The current issue that needs to be addressed started on Fae’s village pump proposal relating to gender neutral language, now archived here. During the discussion of the proposal, Colin raised this query, addressed to Fae. Fae responded with this comment, including a link to this archived page.

Two weeks later, in an unrelated discussion relating to de-adminship, Colin mentioned an opinion that Fae had stated earlier in the thread, to which Fae responded with this comment, again including a link to the same archived page.

Colin lodged a complaint on my talk page with a note on Odder’s page. I invited Fae to respond (as did Odder). Fae has preferred to respond here rather than on my user page.

If anybody wants to look into the historic background, the links have been provided, but what we need focus on now is the current issue and not on what people said, or did not say, in years gone by. Both Colin and Fae have conceded that some of the language they have used in the past was less than optimal, and there is absolutely nothing to be gained by spending yet more fruitless hours discussing matters that are, or at least should be, closed.

Unsuitability of interaction ban as a solution

Although some type of interaction ban between Colin and Fae has been suggested more than once, such an approach would be completely inappropriate on Commons since it would require Colin to self-censor and avoid all threads in which Fae is active, and vice versa. Interaction bans can be effective on Wikipedia, where editors can work on different articles, but can never work on Commons particularly between two active and experienced editors, both of whom would legitimately like to express their opinions on discussion threads that are of significant interest to the community.

This has to be addressed, in my view, by looking at the current actions of the editors involved.

My views on the current issue

It is well-understood that editors are entirely responsible for content and tone of their own posts. There are vanishingly few circumstances in which an unacceptable post can be converted into acceptability by special pleading such as "I was forced to do it", "I was provoked", or similar.

1. The archive page that Fae has twice linked to is, in my view, an attack page, and its use amounts to harassment. The thread was initially manipulated to Colin’s detriment by Fae prior to archiving, firstly by replacing the neutral heading "== AN/U ==" with "== Colin ==“, and secondly by the removal of one of Colin’s posts. While there should normally be no objection to users editing their own talk pages, and even deleting posts that they do not want to see, it is quite unacceptable for the resultant modified thread to be linked to as if it were a neutral record of a talk page conversation.

On 1 July 2016, after the thread had been archived, Fae removed an allegation that Colin was using homophobic language. Before the edit, the text read "It is easy to understand why you did that in response to an openly gay contributor. As a founder of Wikimedia-LGBT , I will not gloss over the use of homophobic language by others, as well you know.” This edit replaced the word "homophobic" with "<redacted>”.

2. The text of the page being linked to is unambiguously incompatible with Fae's earlier apology, and statement that "I have no intention of referring to [the wording Colin apologised for] ever again”. As stated above, editors are entirely responsible for the content and tone of their own posts, and the page being linked to remains unacceptable even if Fae strongly holds the view that the two editors should never as much as refer to each other.

3. Colin’s comment to Fae, as proposer of the gender neutral language policy, was reasonable, relevant and civil. However, given that Fae has previously indicated a desire not to interact with Colin, it would have been preferable for the comments not to have been been expressed as a direct question to Fae, with the implication that an answer was expected.

4. Fae could have avoided the question by not replying at all or could have declined to answer with some neutral phrase such as "In view of our past interactions I would prefer not to respond". The response he posted was unacceptable.

5. Colin's contribution to the de-adminship thread was also reasonable, relevant and civil. The fact that it mentioned Fae by name did not force Fae to respond, and certainly not to respond in that particular way. There is no evident reason why any editor should "be confused as to why [Fae is] not engaging in this section”, and the response appears to be a mere excuse to link to the attack page again.

Selective use of language

In his complaint on my user page, Colin uses a number of expressions that Fae is unwilling to accept, including "allegations of homophobia". As mentioned above, Colin's allegation is correct, and the denial seems difficult to justify on the basis of forgetfulness given that it was the subject of an edit specifically to hide that word from the archived talk page discussion.

In any event, Fae has recently re-accused Colin of “Anti-LGBT language”. To my understanding, as a native English speaker, that accusation and many others like it do indeed amount to an allegation of “homophobia”, using the normal dictionary meaning of the word. I believe that Fae is here attempting to evade the behaviour he is currently being accused of by means of the rhetorical device of focusing on uses of a particular word rather than than on the meaning. Alternatively, it may be that Fae genuinely maintains some technical distinction between the meaning he intends and the meaning that Colin and others understand.

Regardless of the linguistic niceties, which actually don't matter here, it is unacceptable to resurrect an old argument and to accuse Colin once again of Anti-LGBT language after having accepted his prior apology. So far as I can tell (and I have reviewed this pretty carefully) Colin has not said a single thing since Fae’s acceptance of his apology which could remotely amount to anti-LGBT language. The use of both an attack page, and the unjustified continuation of the attack within the above text amount to behaviour very far below that expected from any user of Commons, let alone one who is as experienced as Fae.

Pre-emptive undermining of independent admins

While I understand of course that it is a common tactic of some editors to pre-emptively undermine admins who could be expected to take a dim view of their behaviour, that does not make it either right or acceptable.

It not help Fae’s case that he pre-emptively tried to undermine both my and Odder’s independence as admins by attempting to paint us as Colin’s “informal advocates”. Integrity, fairness and independence are attributes I prize highly, and they will not be overridden by spurious allegations that my volunteer position as chair of a Wikimedia chapter prevents me from acting impartially as an admin here on Commons.

My conclusions

As Odder correctly says above, this has to stop.

Colin:

  • Although there is no requirement on one editor to avoid the other, Colin should bear in mind the fact that tempers can easily run high and that there are obvious sensitivities to this topic.
  • Colin’s postings can sometimes be combative, and he should take care to temper his approach when discussing a subject that he must know from experience can easily result in lengthy and unpleasant arguments.

Fae:

  • A dispute that has been concluded by apology and acceptance of apology should not be resurrected in the absence of any repetition by the other party of the conduct complained of. The creation and use of an attack page is unacceptable under any circumstances. I consider Fae's recent behaviour to fall well below the standards expected of any editor.
  • I will be reverting the second and most egregious of the two links to the archived talk page, and changing the heading of the archived page back to the version created by Colin.
  • Fae is reminded not to edit other people's words in discussion threads without permission or legitimate reason.
  • While blocking of an experienced editor should always be a last resort, sometimes it can play a part in preventing poor behaviour from becoming normalised within the community, and in making manifest the community's disapproval of such behaviour. Should there be any repetition of the behaviour described here, or anything like it, I am prepared to block for harassment or to support any other admin who does so. Should it come to that, I would be prepared to justify that action publicly to the wider Commons community.

MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

As I have raised by email in advance of being forced to write on-wiki, MichaelMaggs has a direct conflict of interest. I ask that a different bureaucrat is asked to confirm whether the team of Bureaucrats is confident that MichaelMaggs can act, or make statements about this matter, in his role as a Bureaucrat or an Administrator. Should a Bureaucrat wish to email me, I would be happy to explain further why MichaelMaggs has a conflict of interest that makes his actions here inappropriate. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm rather late in noticing Michael's response, and too tired now to give this a considered answer. I would like to thank Michael and Odder for what I know is a time consuming and joyless chore to expect from any volunteer: to investigate and attempt a solution to a long running and difficult problem. I'd also like to publicly thank Slaunger for his work last summer, which secured Fae's acceptance of my earlier apology and an agreement to not refer again to that particular event. It was this, together with the support of my friends at Featured Pictures, that encouraged me to return to Commons in the autumn. I'll write some more tomorrow. -- Colin (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Endorsement

I only have editing access via a mobile device these days, but I have noticed my user name being mentioned a few times lately in relation to the long conflict between Fæ and Colin. Last summer I spend evenings going through past interactions between the two in relation to a long discussion at COM:BN. As mentioned by MichaelMaggs we made a step forward in the conflict resolution as Fæ finally accepted an apology that Colin offered long time ago relating to the 'raging gay' incident. Regrettably the thread was closed prematurely (in my mind -I had asked for more time) by Ellin Beltz, which discouraged me from proceeding at the time. I was glad that Fæ accepted the apology and promised never to mention the incident again. An encouraging moment. Regrettably Fæ has not been capable of keeping their promise but found reason to refer to it again twice as reaction to comments from Colin that have been both civil and relevant. They have even referred to it with manipulated text. I do understand Colin finds it very upsetting that Fæ keeps on returning to this incident despite a given and accepted apology.

I can therefore endorse the analysis and statements put forth by odder and MichaelMaggs. They closely match what my impression is of the situation.

In my opinion it appears Fæ is so obsessed by discrediting users who present views that are inconvenient to them. It appears that the number of users or user groups which should not communicate with or only communicate with Fæ over email is ever increasing. --Slaunger (talk)

Comments

  • I think the analysis and statements that made by MichaelMaggs is very reasonable. I don't know whether any other crat is willing to spend this much time to analyse the entire situation. But if willing, I'm not expecting a different report. Jee 02:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I fully and strongly support/endorse the conclusions above by Michael. This behaviour really needs to stop, which is Fæ's repeated lying and harassment against Colin. I don't think there would be a better conclusion than this, but if there is, feel free to state it here. ★ Poké95 07:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Response by Colin

I agree with the assessment and conclusions of Odder and Michael. In particular, I note Michael's advice and agree I have not always approached contentious issues with civility and respect or with the aim of reducing heat in the debate. This is something I'm working on.

If anyone should, at this point, still not accept that Fae has (since November 2013), been conducting a long running smear campaign of baseless allegations of homophobia, then I can email a list of around 50 posts by fae that should add more weight to the handful of examples listed above. The irony is that the art nude "courtesy-link/censorship" fireworks that started all this, and Fae spent so much energy claiming was censorship of a gay artwork by a gay photographer nominated by an openly gay user and was the first ever time nudity had been censored at featured pictures... wasn't actually the first. In fact the previous big discussion in 2009 concerned a very heterosexual cartoon, and was settled amicably with a courtesy-link. Perhaps Commons was more mellow in 2009. Fae has gone on to claim the Featured Pictures process is not "LGBT friendly", to accuse the POTD team of being "heteronormative" (having a homophobic world-view), and to allege my friend Jee was entertaining himself by "poking the gay guy". There's never a shred of evidence for any of these allegations of homophobia. For problem behaviour to stop, a minimum requirement surely is that Fae accepts that it has occurred, that it was wrong and agrees it will not happen again. Fae's responses above indicate the opposite.

Wrt interaction, I'd like to quote a comment from User:Krd at an earlier discussion:

"We have to assume that users are ladies and gentlemen contributing to Commons in good faith and looking forward to working together, or at least accept coexistence of different ideas and discussing in a civil manner. Anybody who does not qualify for these condition should probably reflect if Commons is the best place for them to be."

I think we should consider whether on a community-based open wiki it is valid for a user to impose restrictions on other's interactions with them or to refuse to engage with others, not because of remarks that person has just made (e.g. trolling and the feeding thereof) but because of who they are [leaving aside the issue of blocked accounts and banned users]. For example, Fae's request that WMUK users must use email rather than wiki to communicate with him. Or that I should "go away" from fae. Or that fae should refuse to respond to civil questions from me. I think there are only limited areas where the attitudes of users may lead to issues that are best resolved by avoidance. For examples, users agreeing not to vote on each others Featured Picture nominations. Or admins who hold strongly polarised views on copyright or scope agreeing not to play ping-pong with opening and closing DRs involving the other. But on our general community forums, where we are discussing general community matters, it seems to me that we all need to agree to treat each other with respect and honesty and the civility of a response when asked a reasonable question. Should Fae wish to request we use gender neutral language when addressing User:Jcb or when writing policy pages, that affects me too. As a member of this community, I have a right to ask for clarification, to amend or to challenge such requests. The same goes for Michael's proposal on de-admin. In a recent de-admin discussion, I contested whether the community had reached any consensus to move to formal de-RFA. Thus, the question of whether any new proposal should contain the word "consensus" is very much a matter I should be allowed to discuss, regardless of whether it was Fae who's comments led to it being removed from Michael's proposal. Surely, if one meets the terms-and-conditions for being permitted to edit here, then on these community forums, what matters only is what someone says, not who they are. On that matter, I note that Fae does not object to what Michael wrote above, but simply objects that it was Michael who wrote it. -- Colin (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Response by Fæ

Obviously provoking Colin by linking the statement of fact made in 2015/16 was unwise. Similarly I should have ignored MichaelMaggs' request to comment, and just let him do whatever he wanted with the complaint. Lesson learned. I apologise for that mistake, which I shall not make again. I stand by the facts as I have presented them.

On 21st April I emailed MichaelMaggs with "You should recuse yourself from this complaint and encourage the complainant to follow the standard dispute resolution processes, as indeed they have done several times over the past four years. I presume the reasons for recusal are obvious, so I'd rather not go over them." I find it disappointing that with a long background of chapter politics, and detailed knowledge of various personal information about me and another individual related to the chapter, that he has been unwilling to adopt basic good governance practice and recuse from the request. At any point he could have let another trusted person handle it. Instead MichaelMaggs has taken my flagging his conflict of interest as a personal affront to his competence, which was never my point.

The multiple repeated allegations that I called Colin a "homophobe" or "homophobic" remain completely factually false. Objecting to the misuse of anti-LGBT or homophobic language is not, ever, an allegation that the person using that language is a homophobe. By the community choosing to accept a new type of truth, that these different things are to be read as the same, it makes it impossible for any future LGBT contributor to this project to complain, on this project, that another user has used inappropriate hostile anti-LGBT language without finding that they are being similarly accused of calling people homophobes.

I have lost confidence that my contributions to this project mean anything, or are any longer welcome. --Fæ (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the community no longer welcome your contributions, they are still important for the project. The problem here is your behaviour, and the solution here is very simple in fact. Change your behaviour/attitude towards other users and we are done. That's it. ★ Poké95 15:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
If you have a list of other users I have called homophobes, or ever claimed to believe that I called them homophobic, I'd love to examine it. It's worth repeating the simple statement of fact "Colin can respect my requests to not be hounded, and cease pointedly asking me questions in discussions, when fully aware that I have not been responding for the last year and have stated more than once that I shall never respond... Colin is completely free to forget that I exist." --Fæ (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I really don't want to get involved in this, but what I would say, is that there's an emerging gulf between what you said, what you think you said, how you wanted the community to interpret it and how the community has actually interpreted what you've said. The obvious solution is to understand why the community interprets your comments in this way, and to make the necessary, subtle changes to what you post. I don't think there's a need for more dramatics than that. Nick (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Faced with yet another wall of text with a morass of cherry picked out of context diffs, from events discussed at length and discounted, let's call it a day. Were I to publish an essay of tangential and irrelevant opposition research, no doubt I would be robustly criticised for all sorts of reasons. We are not writing here in a process where the parties have agreed to a defined dispute resolution process, nor even accepted that the selected moderator is a suitable third party, so perhaps it's a good time to walk away from the dead horse. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

A new type of truth

The "anti-LGBT language" incident was one event, not ever an ongoing issue, despite how Fae continues to frame it and use it out-of-context. The language was in quotes, and User:Revent stated was "rather obviously a meant [by me] as an example of something that would be grossly unacceptable", an assessment that several others agree with. That event is exactly the one that Fae should have regarded as a closed matter in July 2016 and had promised they "[had] no intention of referring to it ever again".

I didn't want to post this but in the face of "a new type of truth" (alternative facts), Fae's continued refusal to agree that he's been alleging homophobia at users and groups of users on Commons, here's a more complete list of posts by Fae. I would appreciate if this was courtesy-deleted after this discussion concludes, as it is quite offensive to me and others.

(Redacted)

Wrt problems facing "any future LGBT contributor" making a complaint, I quote the comments by User:Tom Morris to fae:

Fæ, I have to agree with Colin here. This is getting absurd.. . It serves no purpose except to make LGBT contributors—and those contributing on LGBT-related topics—look like drama queens and later Every time we claim there's a bias or discrimination issue and are unable to back it up with some good evidence, we lose credibility when there actually is a case of bias or discrimination."

-- Colin (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

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


Request for Change in name of author of a image file.

Hi. I am Mahatabuz. In the Optometry page in wikipedia, the infobox image usedis my work. Due to privacy reasons, i do not want my name to show up when somebody clicks the pic. The author of the image is me i.e Mahatabuz1997, and i can't access that account now to change my name. Please hide my name, and make it copyright free. The image is in public domain, and is widely used, so I want it to be copyright free. Though that image is my work, the image is not my intellectual property, I actually drew by seeing other pics of the same type which are in public domain. It is just a copy, so this image should also be in public domain. Please change the author name and the license. Also please delete the edit history of the image page so that nobody know who created it. The email linked with the account was [email protected]. Thank you. 2405:204:B10C:F97D:C77:172A:3A88:5530 20:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

well, I have made some changes in wikimedia commons page associated with the image, and made the image under public domain. but still my name is shown in Wikipedia when i click the image. plz do whatever required. and also plz delete the edit history. i don't want my name associated with the image anymore. thank you. 8.37.225.169 20:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

We cannot delete the edit history because it is required as an attribution for any licence of the image and the text contributions made the various editors. That said, unless you log in to your account Mahatabuz1997, we have no way to verify who you are. The file was uploaded by BlackAnt1997 but credited as "own work" to Mahatabuz1997, so do you operate both of these accounts? The artwork is original enough to be copyrighted, so we need do need to know the name of the original author to verify the copyright situation, but if there is no reliable evidence provided for it to be either out of copyright or we get a statement from Mahatabuz1997's account, the file will be deleted in seven days anyway. De728631 (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Nuclear Option please for User:0503szm?

Nuke please MechQuester (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Daphne Lantier 06:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Daphne Lantier: When a user has "szm" in its account name and he/she messes with flags, almost for sure it is a sock puppet of long term abuser, Szm020730. So just block him and tag with {{sockpuppet|Szm020730|blocked}}. --jdx Re: 06:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jdx: The account is already globally locked, so no need for a local block. I will tag him with the sockpuppet category though. Daphne Lantier 06:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Looks like you beat me to it. Daphne Lantier 06:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
It would be better to locally block the said account, so that we can use autoblock (global lock doesn't support autoblock). The vandal of course will move to another IP of course, but this should help, at least a bit. My 2 cents. ★ Poké95 07:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: Autoblock is not a big deal in case of this vandal. I have his/her IP ranges covered by Abuse Filter's rule #173 (details visible only for admins) which seems to work pretty well. --jdx Re: 12:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Glad to see them deleted. Also, I forgot to mention that I had tagged one as blantant vandalism. :) MechQuester (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Blacklist this Flickr washing account

Can an Admin please blacklist the above flickr washing account with the AP name? The flickrbot passed an image below from this source:

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Uploads from this account deleted, and one from another Flickrwashing account (both now blacklisted). I've blocked the uploader as these two accounts are likely his. Daphne Lantier 06:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

FABIOALBERTOMZA

Podría un buen usuario revisar las imagenes de esta cuenta que parecen ser un copyvio https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FABIOALBERTOMZA?uselang=es

--189.238.45.208 23:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

English: Could a good user review the images of this account that seem to be copyvio https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FABIOALBERTOMZA?uselang=en [machine translation]
English: You have made a serious charge. What proof do you have that these are copyright violations?   — Jeff G. ツ 03:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Español: Usted ha hecho un cargo serio. ¿Qué pruebas tiene de que se trata de violaciones de derechos de autor?   — Jeff G. ツ 03:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Need closure at Commons:Village pump/Proposals

Some proposals need closure, like the "Giving OTRS members the ability view deleted files" section. --George Ho (talk) 09:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Non-clear images

Wrong venue. Please refrain from posting topics that do not require administrative action. De728631 (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello.These images are useless due to lack of clarity

  1. File:ORANGE-VESTED TRAFFIC COP KEEPS CARS MOVING AT BUSY INTERSECTION - NARA - 546656.jpg
  2. File:ORANGE-VESTED TRAFFIC COP KEEPS CARS MOVING AT BUSY INTERSECTION - NARA - 546656.tif
  3. File:TRAFFIC COP HEMMED IN BY HOMEBOUND TRAFFIC AT INTERSECTION OF 16TH AND K STREET NW - NARA - 546639.jpg
  4. File:TRAFFIC COP HEMMED IN BY HOMEBOUND TRAFFIC AT INTERSECTION OF 16TH AND K STREET NW - NARA - 546639.tif

What do you think?Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2,
This is the wrong board. Please use the Village Pump for general questions. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Yann: This is not "general question" but about whether the images are contrary to policies or not ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, yes, that's a general question. Admins do not make policies. There is no admin action needed here. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) @ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: This board is for stuff which, i cite from the header, * require administrator assistance*. Not the first time you have been asked not to post about such stuff here. Don't do it again, please. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
✓ moved.Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possibly corrupt image file

The file https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/Kichenok_N._RG16_(3)_(27369360166).jpg/400px-Kichenok_N._RG16_(3)_(27369360166).jpg seems to be corrupt.

Is it possible to recreate it from File:Kichenok N. RG16 (3) (27369360166).jpg?

Thanks, Vinkje83 (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Works for me. Yann (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Vinkje83: Works for me, too.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Me three. ★ Poké95 01:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

According to the cached results of Google Image Search, en:File:Bunty Walia, Juspreet Singh Walia with Abhishek Bachchan at Twitter HQ, Mumbai.jpg is the same photo (albeit with even lower resolution) that was previously uploaded here as File:Bunty Walia, Juspreet Singh Wallia, Abhishek Bachchan, Suhail Chandhok and Aneesh Madani snapped at the Twitter headquarters in Mumbai on June 4, 2016.jpg and deleted, followed by a denied undeletion request and the uploader being blocked. Could an admin please check whether it is the same content? Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 08:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

They are the same. Natuur12 (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
How do we (a) coordinate with other projects that allow local uploads to make sure copyright violators don't just hop projects (b) make sure this stuff doesn't just get transferred right back to us? —LX (talk, contribs) 08:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
A partial answer to your second question is Template:Do not move to Commons which exists on a number of Wikipedias. But it still has to be placed manually, and afaik there is no automated way of checking whether deleted Commons content was transferred to a Wiki. As to coordination, afaik it's done only randomly for some nototorious uploaders but there is no standard way of notifying a user's preferred Wikipedia or something. I think, the only effective way would be some automated process that flags local uploads for review which were made by users being blocked at Commons for copyright infringements. But that would require some global account magic and possibly the consent of local Wikis too. De728631 (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting. I get the feeling one might cop some flak for using Template:Do not move to Commons in some of these cases – I think one would be expected to either nominate the file for deletion if there's enough evidence that it shouldn't be locally hosted or refrain from tagging it altogether. One problem is that nominating files for deletion is different on every project and (especially on English Wikipedia) requires a lot of manual steps. I think we may need to focus on keeping our own house clean, in other words making sure the files don't make it back here. Mechanisms for this should include making sure all upload interfaces check for reuploads of previously deleted content as well as bots to check for transfers naming blocked users/users with a lot of deleted files.
Another problem is that one would often need to be an admin to check deleted content. (It would be great if checksums could be shown in the upload log, unless oversighted.)
Compounding the second issue is that sometimes it's not even the same account, but just the same content. For example, I'm pretty sure en:Special:Log/Armija na Republika Makedonija matches the uploads of Aleksandar Veselinovski and sockpuppets. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia-logo-mr.png

I have uploaded a new version of the file of File:Wikipedia-logo-mr.png but yet it haven't been come into effect. The image shows the older version of the file even though I have added a new version.--✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 11:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a caching issue. You will probably find the file in order if you check back later today. Jcb (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Batch task not working

Hello while I was working on mass request for deletion I was unable to do so. There is no error shown but the visual file change .js doesn't load. Please fix if there is a bug. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 02:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tiven2240: How do you load VFC? As I see, you do not have a common.js. — Speravir – 00:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Speravir: I think it works without common.js on COM:VFC there are ways in which we can use it without it. I think because of it I can use it.. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 01:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

And it worked until recently? Actually, looking into source code of the used template {{Clickable button}} in my eyes it never should have worked. — Speravir – 02:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Speravir: I have added the js code but yet can't perform batch task where there is link to it. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 06:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Though I don't know if it is the same kind of issue, I currently don't manage, me too, to use the link "preform batch tak" in my tool box, see User talk:Steinsplitter#Perform batch task. I only manage to use VFC by clicking on "Just try it without installing" in Help:VisualFileChange.js, and then by selecting the write user name. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
    @Christian Ferrer: So you have two separate issues:
    • IE showing [object HTMLScriptElement] -- That is the symptom of a javascript: uri (likely javascript:importScript("MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js");) returning a non-undefined object (in this case a HTMLScriptElement object). I'm not sure how exactly IE's javascript engine work (and are you using a very old version of IE?), but one workaround may be add a void before the importScript call, like javascript:void importScript("MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js"); or javascript:void(importScript("MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js")); to force an undefined return.
    • Firefox showing no link -- symptom of a script error anywhere... any information in your console? (May be related to Commons:Village_pump#Quick_Delete_links_gone_in_Monobook)
    --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Zhuyifei1999: great! thanks you very much. that is working well (using last version of IE) with your suggestion:javascript:void(importScript("MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js")); Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I temporarily had the same issue with VFC, that it didn’t show up in the sidebar (Vector skin). So I've changed the loading method (Special:Diff/239887847/242217895; side note: importScript is also deprecated for years, but not deactivated), later I switched back using an addition recommended in German Wikipedia (bottom part of Special:Diff/239887847/242217895 Special:Diff/242217895/242289369), and now it is loaded fine. — Speravir – 20:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry at all, I just have noticed, that I have posted a wrong diff link, see now the changed link in my last post. --Speravir
@Admins with scripting abilities: In m:Tech/News/2017/18 there is now also a section for mw.loader.using( 'mediawiki.util' ), in a slightly different way than the recommendation in dewiki, but most important here: Should we either add the this part to Help:VisualFileChange.js or, as alternatively suggested in Tech News, add something to MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition? — Speravir – 18:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I used already your current revision, and it still doesn't work... Using Firefox 7.4 (iOS). And the "nominate for deletion", "no source", "no permission", and "no license" buttons disappeared... ★ Poké95 00:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: Importing your common.js shows User:Finnrind/NewPagePatrol.js broken for other reasons --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I removed that script, and it worked! VFC is now working, and the buttons which disappeared came back. Thanks! ★ Poké95 01:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
It’s a bit sad, that there is a over 2 years old message on the talk page of this script regarding the issues, but Finnrind didn’t react to this. — Speravir – 02:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not very wikiactive nowadays and certainly not much on Commons. Didn't notice this issue before just now. If there's any problem with that javacriptpage, delete it or do whatever necessary . I'm haven't been patroling patrolling stuff here the last five years or so. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, why doesn't 'user' depend on 'mediawiki.util'? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I am not the right one to ask this … — Speravir – 23:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Fremantle Society Photographic Survey

Back in 2012 I started a qrpedia project in Frementle as part of that the Fremantle Society decided to upload all the images of it photographic survey of Fremantle from 1978. This was a commissioned project paid for by the Society. The OTRS process was followed and the agent accepted the files from the collection, now sometime later it was decided that the person who is uploading couldnt put the permission as confirmed on the image but that an otrs agent had to review every upload. Now in 2017 another OTRS agent has decided that the Fremantle Society might not be the owner of the Copyright and that person who initially approved the images didnt know what they were doing. In the last 5 years not image has been claimed as being owned by anyone. You can read the discussion about this here the out come of rejecting this it that we lose a valuable historical collection that was given freely but worse it puts at risk every permission ever granted through the OTRS system from single images to 100s of thousands images uploaded from GLAMs.

I'm not saying OTRS agents shouldnt seek clarity but once a permission is accepted by the community it should be honored just like we expect those that make the donation to honor the unrevokable license under which they provide the work. Gnangarra 04:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

As I wrote on my user talk page, I am trying to sort this out with the organization. No need to extrapolate this case to old tickets in general. The suggestion that the permission would have been accepted by the community is wrong of course. Back in 2012, just like now, OTRS agents were not perfect. The former OTRS agent who handled this ticket in 2012 handled it improperly, so that it is unclear whether the permission comes from the copyright holder. As you have seen at my user talk page, another OTRS agent (Revent) agrees that this particular ticket is not in order. Please leave this case to the OTRS team for now. Jcb (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The copyright holder is the Fremantle Society and the permission came from the Society, no this shouldnt be left to the OTRS team you alone, this is a matter for the community. And has been explained this was a commissioned work of voluteers all costs paid for by the Fremantle Society under Australian Copyright Act commissioned works are the copyright of the organisation commissioning the work not the photographer. Gnangarra 09:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@Gnangarra: As I explained at the other discussion, carefully reading Section 35 of the 1968 Australian Copyright Act makes it clear that the status of such works is more nuanced....there is no blanket 'works for hire' provision unless the author was an actual employee, "under a contract of service or apprenticeship". You and samwilson are, however, making multiple assertions that are (without being specific about exactly what the ticket says) not made by the alleged owners of the copyright in the email that was sent to OTRS. None of these assertions, however, add up to the Society owning the copyrights, under the language of the law itself.... only an actual assignment of copyright would establish that. - Reventtalk 10:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_63&oldid=243120374"