Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 52

Another David Beals sock and image

See File:Swap&Go diner 2.jpg and Category:Sockpuppets of David Beals

The user and several IPs have been blocked at en.wikipedia; but an admin here needs to cleanup the image used for the disruption. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 00:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

  Done Blocked and tagged, creations nuked, and sleeper User:Owen Laguna blocked and tagged. INeverCry 00:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Request of deletion testing revisions

Dear Admins,

I redrawn this raster file to this vector file and I tried to make it ready for translation. I checked the Sandbox before, but it seemed to allow playing with text formatting only, but I needed to test the image upload process and SVG rendering, this is why I created many versions of the latter file. Could any of you delete the unnecessary revisions please? Only the very first (16:28, 2015 March 31) needs to be kept, as it contains Inkscape-information, but all the others between the first and the latest can be removed.

This file also can be deleted, because it was only a test of rendering.

Thanks in advance--Balu Ertl (talk) 09:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. File:Triple constraint.svg now only has the earliest version, and File:Translatable SVG test.svg is deleted. Rehman 06:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Rehman -- Balu Ertl (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This category of Failed images?

Is an Administrator or Bureaucrat supposed to delete images in this category of unrecent unfree images? Some images here have been here for 2 weeks. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  Done All ARR and 1 ND, so deleted. I'll keep that cat on my watchlist. INeverCry 03:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I have written User:SteinsplitterBot/Copyvios (Cat) for easy tracking such cats. Admins can add/remove cats to the tracking system by editing the query. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Backlog

Greetings again: We have an over one month backlog on Commons:Deletion_requests. Could admins please pick away on these, there is a lot of low-hanging fruit mixed in with the coin-flippers. (The foregoing sentence is intended as humorous descriptions of the situation.) Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Did some but a lot of the older DR's are real drama magnets :). Natuur12 (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Drama? Think math or genetics' Punnet square: The DN can be either 0, or 1, the close can be either 0, or 1, resulting in 1,1 ; 1,0 ; 0,1 ; 0,0 as the outcomes. Notice that the greater probability of correctness lies in the middle at 50%, not for TRUE, TRUE... nor for FALSE, FALSE - each of which have only a 25% probability. What this means for Commons DN closures, is you're likely to annoy 50% or more of the people in the argument no matter what you do. My enduring question is why we get annoyed with each other when the desired goal outcome - a great project - is at the core of all our efforts. And with all kidding aside we have a huge backlog; would other admins close a few each and then we can all clear the drama from our talk pages onsie twosie? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

suivi d'un message reçu pour la la creation de fichier photos

Bonjour,

Je veux mettre des photos dans d'un article, j'ai sauvegardé de photos sur wikimedia commons. J'ai reçu un courriel mentionnant : 37.5.7.161 a laissé un message sur votre page de discussion dans File:Potrait JHC 2.jpg.Ce fichier a été proposé(e) à la suppression depuis 8 avril 2015. Pour en discuter, merci d’aller sur la page de la demande. Ne retirez pas ce message tant que la demande de suppression n’est pas close. Raison pour la demande de suppression : useless without a description


J'aimerais avoir de l'aide afin d'effacer cette photos et 3 les autres de la même catégorie ou bien si on peut m'aider à afficher ces photos dans l'article. Autre chose, est ce qu'il y a moyen de chercher d'autre photo qui existe déjà sur wiki dont je ne suis pas l'auteur?

Merci. --Choucoune (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Please delete the current version uploaded by Thiago MTB in 03.2015 considering that this official flag (with the centered coat of arms) of Brazilian municipality pt:Nova Venécia was established & created by municipal law only in 2012 (see also pt:Brasão de Nova Venécia and http://www.cmnv.es.gov.br/Arquivo/Documents/LO/LO31902012.pdf), failing {{PD-BrazilGov}} "published or commissioned by a Brazilian government prior to 1983". Thx. Gunnex (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  Done - one version deleted. Green Giant (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion Request

User:Lioriko10 uploaded some files which he sourced from "walla". Those photos are from movie so there is copyright violation. Thanks, BlueHorizon (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  Done by Denniss at 16:05, 9 April 2015. Green Giant (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please delete

User:Iqbalmugheri1, other user has created this and removed twice my speedy deletion tag.--Motopark (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  Done. Green Giant (talk) 05:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

This User

  ResolvedBlocked for 1 week, deleted uploads. Materialscientist (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

This user had many images deleted recently due to copyright problems but on April 10 he uploaded 2 new images that are of very low resolution and claims that he is the copyright owner...including a new version of Azhar Ali I think they are both copyright violations. Can anyone take action here? Its not good if an account only uploads other people's work. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Version deletion?

I just uploaded a new version of this image with personal rights relevant information retushed. It would be great if anybody could delete the first version with the door signs for privacy resons? Thanks! -- ThisIsForEveryone (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Suppressed under category 1 of the Oversight policy. In the future, if requesting removal of material for privacy reasons please contact the Commons Oversight team at oversight-commons-at-lists.wikimedia.org . Best, Tiptoety talk 15:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! -- ThisIsForEveryone (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Please delete all old revisions per COM:IDENT. Thanks in advance,    FDMS  4    22:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

On the face, this is a photo of David Shankbone, uploaded by David Shankbone, who is capable of making a request for himself. The policy cited does not apply, because consent was obviously given. So this request is mysterious. --Abd (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
@Abd: The depicted person is not David Shankbone, or did you mean taken by David Shankbone?    FDMS  4    23:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, okay, by David Shankbone, if you say so (and I agree, the person looks different). However, it's still not an identifiable person, so COM:IDENT doesn't clearly apply. Is the claim here that consent was not given? To be sure, there would seem to be little harm in the revision deletion, especially the oldest, since Shankbone did upload new versions. --Abd (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The claim is that consent would be required for the first revision (on which the person is IMO easily identifiable) and also possibly for all others except for the current one. That there hasn't been any assertion of consent from the uploader is a fact.    FDMS  4    21:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Please delete photos from wiki page

Please delete the current photos from the following page, As I have superior photos to replace it with, but the images are different. I understand that only authorized administrators can delete photos.

Thank you very much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miya_Masaoka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleaxwordernen (talk • contribs)

  • We don't delete files simply because there are others (arguably superior) in our collection; our aim is to amass an enormous collection of freely licenced educational media. Similarly, the page you link to is an English Wikipedia article, Commons is simply a media repository, and as such we do not engage in content discussions at other Wikimedia projects. Please add your photos to our collection, but understand that unless a valid reason is provided to delete files, the old ones will remain. If you wish to insert your images into an English Wikipedia article, that is an issue to be discussed at English Wikipedia, or, be bold! ColonialGrid (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Astronomy image origin not explicit or obvious

Not sure where to ask this question so thought I would start here - i am a newbie at this:

The following image - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hertzsprung-Russel_StarData.png appears on numerous wiki pages where a good Hertzsprung-Russel diagram is required.

All give the origin as - http://www.eso.org/public/images/ but a check of that website reveals that while it has the appearance of a file that may have an ESO origin ESO do not list it. Also, I did contact ESO a while back and they spent some time looking in their archives and did not find it.

Thus, while I would like to use this "free" image in some of my work I am still not sure I can as the actual origin of the work or the creator of this modified ESO work is obscure. IS there any way we can find out more about this image and if it is truly a free work or if it is actually a modified ESO image that has an owner that I need to contact. Category:Astronomy diagram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geowallwalker (talk • contribs) .

Hello Geowallwalker, the "other versions" field on the file description page of File:Hertzsprung-Russel StarData.png has a link to the very similar File:ESO - Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram (by).jpg, which originally comes from here. On the other hand, the file's talk page has a note from an anonymous contributor which states that “This image is not from ESO. It is a figure from "The Cosmic Perspective" by Bennett et al. and published by Pearson.” That's a bit strange … --El Grafo (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello El Grafo, I have checked again with ESO and that version of the H-R diagram is not in their archive. I have also viewed a PDF of an abridged version of The Cosmic Perspective by Bennett et al called the Essential Cosmic Perspective. It contains versions of the H-R diagram that are or seem sourced from the ESO versions including one that is identical to File:Hertzsprung-Russel StarData.png with one minor update or improvement. This publication does not acknowledge ESO as the source. I am now trying to obtain a copy of the full hard copy to see if the source is identified. It is either based on an ESO image or both the textbook image and the ESO image are both derived from some other source. I may end up writing to Bennett to get it clarified as I really need permission to use the image if it is not supposed to be in the public domain. --Geowallwalker (talk) 03:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Flag of Georgia.svg

I prefer to minimize precautionary protections, however I propose this file is protected to ensure moderated discussion of changes (discussion on File_talk:Flag_of_Georgia.svg is not yet at a consensus). It has been highlighted on User:Fæ/SignificantReverts and is in use on 75,316 pages across Wikimedia projects. This makes reverts/overwrites have significant potential impact and images with this unusual magnitude of transclusions are normally very stable. Pinging those reverting this week for their information or opinion - @Fry1989: @Lzhl: . -- (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Protected. -- Geagea (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Verify permission

File:10-georges ghostwriter300.jpg

According to this, the commons page correctly describes authorship, but the claim about permission must be verified. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

  Done Thanks, I've added the {{Npd}} template. --99of9 (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Misdated w:Tyus Jones/w:Justice Winslow picture. (protected image)

File:Justise Winslow and Tyus Jones.jpg is misdated. It was from April 18, 2014 although it is dated April 14, 2013. It has to be this date because that was the date of the 2014 w:Jordan Brand Classic. Note the Jordan logos on the shirts and you can image search the uniforms for this game. I wanted to note the description page for this error but it is a protected image. I contacted the author in January and he has ignored my query.--TonyTheTiger (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  Done. Also added a category. Taivo (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Taivo, Still wrong date.--TonyTheTiger (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  Done Sorry. Taivo (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some sort of explanation that the source file has to be misdated?--TonyTheTiger (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Taivo, How about User:TonyTheTiger has observed details of the picture (including the uniforms) which clarify it was taken on April 18, 2014 at the 2014 w:Jordan Brand Classic. He contacted author Bryan Horowitz (flickr user SportsAngle.com) on 27 Jan 15, 9.33PM PDT to confirm the incorrect date on the photo and has gotten no response.--TonyTheTiger (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I wrote into file description what you said. Isn't it enough? Should we make a template for that? As much as I know, there is no template designed for that. Taivo (talk) 08:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Help with undeletion of file

File:Russell “Tad” Martin.jpg was deleted on March 11. I emailed OTRS at (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) on March 23 with a forward of the permissions email I received from the owner of the photo. It is now April 15 and I have not heard back from OTRS. How long does this process usually take? Will they email me back? Can anyone please help me have this file undeleted? I appreciate the assistance very much. 1114Penelope (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm pinging Fastily, who deleted. That delay is normal (it can be much longer), but sometimes administrators will go ahead and undelete, assuming good faith -- or some may be able to expedite the ticket. Forwarding a permission email is not enough. OTRS would need to receive verification directly from the copyright owner. Read Commons:OTRS#If you are not the copyright_holder carefully. You did not follow the instructions. Exact details matter, such as "full header." Someone who knows OTRS better than I will advise you how best to clean up the mess. The details matter, such as "complete headers." --Abd (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
1114Penelope, this happens quite often, so patience is advised, especially given that there are about 1,000 emails to be answered at any one time. The essential step is to confirm that the license statement is from the copyright holder. Tad is the subject of the photo so either he used a timer or hired a photographer, who could quite easily be a member of his staff. However it is possible to transfer copyright, so this is the confirmation I've asked for. Green Giant (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Abuse filter claims that I was edit warring when I'm merely modifying my own comments

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/914797. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Because "revert" was too often in the edit summary. Special:AbuseFilter/132. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
View this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/914798. Then check the diff. The edit summary was "Repairing". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
"/* Ryulong's blind reverts */ Repairing." <-- "revert" in edit summary. Talk namespaces are exempted, but Commons is not a talk namespace. Therefore this edit was "tagged". Not sure how to fix that :/. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, any admin may revise the edit filter to make it more sophisticated. I don't know if it's worth the effort here. I got the same warning, editing that section. I think any non-admin will, because of "revert" in the section header, automatically then in the edit summary. Thanks for reporting this, Michael, I know know that my instant paranoia was unjustified. --Abd (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that Special:AbuseFilter/132 is worth the server load it creates, every edit must be examined by these filters. From recent history, at least, disabling this might be considered. --Abd (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: Oh, thanks for the explanation. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
The filter consumes ~24 conditions and has some false matches. Disabled for now. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Restore file

Hi, please restore File:Lars Hinrichs.jpeg. Per OTRS ticket:2015021210014789 it has been released under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Please delete the latest version 06:08, 23. Apr. 2014 by Vist2938 and restore the orginal upload because (see also the mysterious watermark) grabbed from Internet (per watermark taken somewhere from http://www.cri.cn). Thx. Gunnex (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  Done Yann (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Picture source has been changed

What we shall don in [1] this kind of change of source, promotional ? --Motopark (talk) 06:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Quick deleted image check

Could an admin please tell me if File:BJCroome UCT 100yrs 2014.jpg (undelete) is the same image as File:2014 UCT 100years tax southafrica.jpeg? Thanks. --UserB (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It is. --Didym (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. --UserB (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Another quick deleted image check

Is File:IbnBattatuEffendi.jpg at all similar to File:IbnBattutaRiding.jpg? Similar in the sense of "are they variants of the same piece of original art", not whether he looks similar, or anything subjective like that. Asking because of a discussion at en:WP:RDH. Nyttend (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

No! Totally different! The deleted file is almost-photo, only man's head can be seen. Taivo (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Could an admin please move File:Sailor.jpg to File:Petty Officer Forrest.jpg over top of the redirect? The only usage of File:Petty Officer Forrest.jpg is using it via the redirect. Sailor.jpg is an awful generic name and should probably a protected redlink. --B (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 04:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. --B (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Requesting deletion to make way for transcluded user page from Meta

Please delete the page User:Pine to make way for the transcluded user page from Meta. Thanks, --Pine 08:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  Done (please use {{Speedydelete}} for speedydeletion requests) --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Permission, but mistaken image

I made a mistake when uploading an image: File:Mauna Kea protest March 18.jpg This is not the work of the person and needs to be removed. Sorry. My mistake. I am double checking all the images with the photographers giving permissions before uploading. I thought I had it right.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. In the future, you can use {{Speedy}} to request deletion of files you have uploaded. -FASTILY 05:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't seem to find the templates. I found the photographer and we are asking permissions. All future images will have OTRS ticket request. Thanks!--Mark Miller (talk) 06:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I uploaded the full image from the original source and photographer with permission and have notified them of the proper OTRS procedure and template.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Can an Admin mark this image? I don't know if Rachel Larue is a US government worker or not. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Review done. Yann (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete files with license violation

You have batch of files with wrong CCA3 license. In Russia that photos can be free if it shoot in open for free attendance, or visible from that places. But it was shoot at private houses with license and law violation. You must delete it: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]--JayDi (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The copyright is meant to protect artists, not Putin. It seems to me, that this house is old, architect and artists are dead for more than 70 years and so here is nothing to protect anymore. But those photos are really made in unfree places. So please show, which art or architecture in the photos are still protected with copyright, and those photos can be deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
This photos was short in new private residence by workers and upload to internet. It's not free to use in wikipedia.
My mistake. I think, that photo 7 does not surpass threshold of originality, but the others should be deleted. Let the other users also think something. Taivo (talk) 10:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Rosoft, Michael is a sock of User:David Beals. He has uploaded images over other images of his favorite, ceiling fans. Can someone fix the images and block him? -- GB fan 23:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete first version

I wonder if anyone here could help me deleting the first revision of this image, since it has a pretty big commercial not covered by FoP in Spain since it is not permanent. I photoshopped the image (not in a very professional way, I know) and removed that stuff, but the first version must be deleted. Thanks in advance! Strakhov (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  Done - Strakhov. Green Giant (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Rev del req

Requesting rev del on a previous, non-free version of File:Alto's Adventure trailer.webm (original trailer audio is copyrighted, so I stripped it). Thanks! czar  12:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Didym (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI on OTRS filter

Hi all. Just wanted to let you know that following an internal discussion amongst the OTRS team, which was preceded by a discussion here on Commons, we have went ahead and enabled auto-responses for English-language permissions tickets. As a result, you may notice an increase in users mentioning ticket numbers when attempting to get their files undeleted, an increase in AbuseFilter hits caused by non-OTRS members adding their own templates.

If you have any questions feel free to drop a line here or at the OTRS noticeboard. Thank you. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Another revdel needed

At File:Opel Antara 2.0 CDTI front 20100516.jpg please delete the revision as of 21:05, 25 April 2015 by IRSoloviev. It's a copyvio of this image. De728631 (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  Comment Not exactly the same image, but considering (example) http://www.auto-news.de/auto/fotoshows/anzeige_Genfer-Autosalon-2011-Alle-Serien-Neuheiten-im-Ueberblick_id_29245&picindex=25 (2011) = http://www.auto-news.de/webcore/data/content/Auto_ClickTrick_STD/29247_genf_serien_msn_19.jpg (last modified 2011) I would confirm: overwritten by a copyright violation. So, please delete all related versions by IRSoloviev. Gunnex (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  Done by Denniss. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Can someone have an eye on User:Internetphänomen. The headings of his fotos are vandalism (hate speech) in german. Thx. --Der.Traeumer (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely by Steinsplitter. All his uploads have also been deleted. De728631 (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  Done--Der.Traeumer (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Per this Village pump/Copyright discussion, the previous revision of File:Arhats_Panthaka,_Nagasena,_Gopaka,_and_Abheda,_from_a_six-part_set_of_Arhat_Immortal_Thangkas_FS-7619_08.jpg should probably be hidden to avoid copyright issues with regard to the applicability of {{PD-art}}. Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Use of distorted Emblem of India in Barnstars: Neither permitted by Law, nor Commons' Rules

Hello. Many barnstars for example (1, 2, 3) have been using distorted National Emblem of India as a base image. Use of Emblem of India (or any part of it) in barnstars on WP is in violation to many Acts and Statutes of India (1, 2, 3, 4). Further, using the half/distorted Emblem attracts even more severe consequences since it is not inline to Law and Statues of India in Force (this order of GOI). These Acts also prohibits the use of this Emblem by Indian who are not in India since they are bound to follow the law of Land (Section 1.2). It is pertinent to mention that these barnstars are part of WikiProjects India and mainly/generally created, maintained and used by and awarded to Indian editors. A detailed discussion on this issue along with citations and links to appropriate laws/statutes had taken place on this page yesterday.

These barnstars not only are in violation to many acts and statutes of India, but also violate the standby official policies of WP too which state that the images which are in public domain can not be used, reused, mixed, remixed if specific legal restrictions are in place. Since this exactly is the case for Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use Act as Well as Proper Use Rules), every time we create a barnstar with National Emblem of India (or any part of it), or use them, distribute them, display them, we violate the policies of WP too. Display of half Emblem (as is being done in above barnstars) is also considered disgrace and dishonor to the Nation as per Indian Statutes in Force.

As per the advise of many admins/ and then Stewards, I am posting this issue here for advise and help to decide upon whether these specific barnstars (containing full OR half Emblem of India and/or Indian Flag) should be used or to be sent in afd discussion or replaced with appropriate image. May I request the admins here to please help decide on this matter as appropriate. Thanks. --Educationtemple (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This is problem of India, not problem of Commons. We usually do not obey to local laws. Although there are something, what you cannot do with these files (for example, to commit a fraud), this does not mean, that you cannot make derivative works of them. Taivo (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Can you please tell me where is this written that WP dost not obey local laws pertaining to Nations. To my knowledge, standby official policies of WP is that the images which are in public domain can not be used, reused, mixed, remixed if specific legal restrictions are in place. Also, as long as WP is in Cyberspace, the laws of cyberspace need to be followed. AND THIS MATTER IS NOT SIMPLY SOME a, b, c IMAGE, THIS IS PERTAINING TO NATIONAL EMBLEM OF INDIA. I am sure, Indian Editor should get a hint from above advise that this matter is not related to Commons, but India; and Indian Editors, who are creating such illegal derivative works, would be in problem if a notice is taken by Government and not WP. Invite @Titodutta: to read this thread and reply of Commons above. --Educationtemple (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The situation is totally analogous to file:SA-Logo.svg, file:3rd SS Division Logo.svg, file:KG54 Totenkopf.jpg, file:War Ensign of Germany 1935-1938.svg and file:Reichsdienstflagge 1935.svg. Indian national emblem is in public domain and those Nazi symbols are also in public domain. But there are a lot of restrictions in their country of origin. Nevertheless all those files are still in Commons. They have special disclaimer. Probably the Indian national emblem needs also such disclaimer, but they should remain into Commons, just like all those Nazi symbols are in Commons. Taivo (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I never argued that the Indian Emblem "Should Not" be in Commons. I just put forward the existing rule position that Emblem "Can Not" be Used and Displayed on Barnstar i.e. a place where it is not supposed to be and that such barnstars need to be immediately deleted if they are hosted on commons or elsewhere. I just argued that Indian National Emblem Canot be distorted, adopted for some other remixing or other artistic work since this is prohibited. Indian law permit to display Emblem on the educational articles/book chapters which is pertaining to information about Emblem itself for educational purposes only as long as it is displayed in full. It can also be displayed on other pages pertaining to Indian Ministry, Supreme court of India and so on - BUT using the emblem, cutting it head, and then distribute as Barnstar is neither permitted by Indian law, nor by Commons rules (I have cited the appropriate references above). --Educationtemple (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Also I would like to specifically ask you: Have these (restricted) Nazi symbols been used on Barnstar on WP? I dont think this had happened. The places where these symbols have been displayed on WP are the articles pertaining to them and specifically them. Additionally, comparing these Nazi symbols with the WP barnstars + distorted Emblem of India is not appropriate. What disclaimer exactly you propose that will justify such depiction of Indian Emblem on WP barnstars? In my view, any such disclaimer can only justify the display of Indian Emblem on articles pertaining to Emblem but not on Barnstar --Educationtemple (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The WMF is a US based organisation and not an Indian based organisation so I don't see how it violates US law. Yes it is probably illegal in India but that is the uploaders responsibility and it's not a reason to delete a file from Wikimedia Commons. I believe you misinterpreted our non copyright restrictions policy. Natuur12 (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Then please suggest me how to handle the issue? The uploaders and users of these barnstars are Mostly Indian and this act cover them without any reservations. How to protect them from doing such illegal things, which they have done due to ignorance. My only point is that WP and Commons may not come under the law purview of Indian judicial realm, but those Editors come and I am worried for them only?? --Educationtemple (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
If you think that somebody has committed a severe crime, you should contact law enforcement agencies (without threats to users), which aren't usually reached via Wikimedia Commons' administrators' noticeboard. If you are "worried for them only", I'd suggest contacting them on their user talkpages instead of asking for administrative intervention.    FDMS  4    20:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to understand the specifics here. What is the "State Emblem of India" as defined in the Indian legislation cited? The first source has "'emblem'" means the State Emblem of India as defined in clause (b) of section 2 of the Act;"
  • Clause (b) of section 2 has "emblem" means the State Emblem of India as described and specified in the Schedule to be used as an official seal of the Government. That document goes on:
3. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall use the emblem or any colourable imitation thereof in any manner which tends to create an impression that it relates to the Government or that it is an official document of the Central Government,...
  • That is what I would expect from common law.
  • The schedule is very specific. The filer here writes about "distorted emblems." Sure they are distorted. They are not the national emblem of India as described! They may resemble it, and if used to imply that the user is officially representing the Government of India, that would be illegal. Otherwise, Wikipedia barnstars? You have to be kidding! --Abd (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)



Not our problem, nothing actionable against Wikimedia. Fry1989 eh? 00:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
All right. It is not a problem of Wikipedia (as most admins commented above), but as stated above by one admin, it may be the problem of India. India is not a country of me alone, it is the country of 120 million and thousands of editors here on wikipedia. As a responsible citizen of India, the maximum I could do at this stage is that bring it to the notice of top officials of Government of India in a neutral manner. They have more knowledge than us about their statutes, their rules and Emblem of India and they are right people to decide if this was a violation at anyone's part or if it is OK to use these images/distorted images on barnstars. I close my protest to this here. Cheers! --Educationtemple (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, I doubt the "top officials of the Government of India" can be so interested in this matter when they have far more important things to deal with. Second, you seriously feel the need to inform them of this? Even if this is a crime in India, it is a completely harmless crime and maybe at worst reaches the level of "offending national symbols" which in many countries is actually considered a right of free speech. There are other things that need to be dealt with, like murder, and theft, and bribery, before getting to something that hurts no one. Fry1989 eh? 16:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The government of South Korea licenses this image as cc by sa. Is this image generic image to be free of FOP? If it is, please pass this image. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea. Also, the license CC-BY-SA 2.0 contradicts with file description, which prohibits commercial use and derivative work. Taivo (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggested boycott of links to Wikispecies

Hi, there are major problems at Wikispecies which cannot be resolved. I therefore suggest that we do not put links to Wikispecies on any Commons pages. I will remove any that I added in the past. Would there be any objections if I removed those added by others? I do not want to go against the wishes of the community here, so can I ask for some sort of consensus opinion on this, please? Stho002 (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Import this conflict to here and you end up blocked here as well. Natuur12 (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Who loses? Not me ... Stho002 (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
At any rate, I haven't "imported a conflict", I have politely asked the admin community here a question. Please don't turn this into a conflict ... Stho002 (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Warned user for removing {{WikispeciesCompact}} from categories -FASTILY 00:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Explanation here. I still intend to rv all WS links that I have myself added. Stho002 (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
No, please do not do that. It does not matter whether you added the links yourself, or whether somebody else did. Links should not be removed from Commons simply on the basis of some conflict you have run into elsewhere. I don't know what this is about, but I assume it relates to this argument on Meta. Please keep it off Commons. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
As I said, if I added the link, I can remove it. If you want to get into a war about it and block me from continuing to contribute images to Commons, then I can't stop you, and I don't really care at this point. Perhaps you should learn what the conflict actually is about, before making rash judgements? Stho002 (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to tell us *why* you think we are better off not having links. But until you establish a new consensus, removing existing links is problematic, and given that you have already been warned, if it continues you will be blocked. Just as the pictures we upload cannot singlehandedly be later deleted, your contributions to links are not your property. If consensus is to keep them, leave them. --99of9 (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
We don't have a formal consensus yet on the issue. If I think that a link I added earlier is adding nothing useful, then I am free to remove it. Please do not misattribute to me attitudes which I do not have, i.e. "your contributions to links are not your property". You only end up sounding like a jumped up little tinpot Hitler ... Stho002 (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The sheer volume of such links suggest a strong informal consensus. If you really believe the community doesn't/won't want them, feel free to start and advertise a vote (PS it would help if you actually told us what you think is wrong with wikispecies!). By treating the links you added differently to links added by others, you demonstrate some issue with ownership. --99of9 (talk) 05:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@Stho002: Please read Commons:Ownership of pages and files. I reverted you... Removing links without telling us what the problem is , is not OK. Do not disrupt Commons to illustrate a point. --Steinsplitter (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Since the image files are all linked by usage to WS anyway, your protestations appear to be nothing more than chest beating. Again, it is not about "ownership". If I make a mistake editing, I want to fix that mistake. I want to fix my mistake of having added links to WS, which is no longer a reliable site. I am waiting for someone else to post an RfC at Meta regarding the "problem at WS", before I explain Stho002 (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  User blocked It is because Stho002 is indef block on wikispecies for "Blocked indefinitely. Reason: Vandalism of multiple edits and persistent sockpuppetry" (Special:CentralAuth/Stho002)? Importing drama from wikispecies to commons. I blocked the user for violating COM:OWN to make a COM:POINT after warnings. --Steinsplitter (talk) 05:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Block evasion: Special:Contributions/130.216.201.43 (can someone cu pls?) --Steinsplitter (talk) 05:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Steinsplitter requested I run a CheckUser based on the obvious block evasion above. I found that the following are   Confirmed as being operated by the same person: BioLibrarian (talk · contribs) (globally locked), Entomologist2 (talk · contribs), NZcat (talk · contribs), and NZCat2 (talk · contribs) though only one has made any edits. No comment with respect to the IP, of course. Tiptoety talk 05:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Please delete

Deletion request closed but files not deleted Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tom Boakai Tombekai, I, please delete--Motopark (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  Done. Green Giant (talk) 07:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

A question

I want to know the reason why you have to log in or register, I just want to know why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.145.89.11 (talk • contribs)

  • You don't have to log in or register to do some things: you did not log in or register to leave this message. So would you please be more specific about what particular action you are asking about, and then someone can probably give you an answer. - Jmabel ! talk 23:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You only need to register and login to upload files. You can do other actions while not logged in. But to be able to track your own edits, it is quite convenient to register and log in. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I was talking about creating pages, I want to know the reason why you need an account to create pages. 216.145.89.11 17:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You don't need an account for creating pages here on Wikimedia Commons. You need it for creating pages on the English Wikipedia. Please ask there. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It says "You have to log in to create new pages. Please log in or sign up if you would like to create this page. If you can not or do not want to sign up, you can ask at the Village pump (community), the Help desk or the Administrators' noticeboard for help." when I try to create pages. 216.145.89.11 23:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thats correct, you need to login for creating pages. You can ask the community if you dont want to log in so that someone can help you creating the page. --Martin H. (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

But why do you need to log in to create a page, I want to know why. 216.145.89.11 00:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The change to not allow anonymous users to create new pages was made by Jimmy Wales back in late 2005, originally as an experiment... the idea was to reduce new-page vandalism. See here. Revent (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

And why does it also apply to Wikimedia Commons and not just Wikipedia? 216.145.89.11 22:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Essentially the same reason. See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 39#Proposed Change of Rules. LX (talk, contribs) 22:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
And why did Yann say you didn't need an account to create pages if you actually do, was that user lying? 216.145.89.11 20:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
You are mixed up the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. These are different projects with different rules. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • There is a bit of confusion of expression here. A literal answer to the question about user rights is that permissions are as set up in the wiki configuration files, and the rights of various users may be seen at Special:ListGroupRights.
  • To upload files, one must be at least a member of the Autoconfirmed users group. That requires registration. But the user asked about creating pages, not uploading files. Anonymous users fall into the (all) group. All users may create pages on Commons. So, for example, an anonymous user may create a Deletion request, which is a page in the Commons namespace. --Abd (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
And perhaps I'm wrong. I tried to create a page User:Abd/Test, logged out, and was prevented by the Edit filter. I tried to create a mainspace page and was redirected to a Category.
See Special:AbuseFilter/105. This explicitly implemented the discussion linked above. Nobody closed that discussion. Filter 105 was running in log mode. It's been activated. Yann, you may not have been aware of this. Editing by anonymous users is quite regulated now. It's a bit of a nuisance, I imagine. If I go to User:Abd/Test, I get a link to create the page. I get a message that I have to log in to create pages. However, there is an edit window, so I can go ahead and try to create the page. There are conflicting messages. There is, at the top, the message requiring log-in. But then there is a message telling me how to start the page. So I enter all my text, and the Edit Filter rejects it. My attempt also triggered Filter 53.
Special:AbuseFilter/53. This blocks an anonymous user from editing a user page. Even in subspace. On en.wiki, my regular user page had frequent vandalism, so sometimes it was semiprotected, and I created a subpage that could be edited anonymously. This edit filter will prevent that.
I'm not terribly exercised about all this. It's easy to register an account, and it is more anonymous than editing IP. However, the Edit Filter is a powerful tool, and I've seen it abused. It also increases server load, because every edit must be scanned to see if it matches the conditions. So it's a trade-off. --Abd (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
On Commons there is a lot of licensing info on userspace subpages which at least in my opinion shouldn't be editable by anons or new users.    FDMS  4    06:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this long talk! 216.145.89.11 12:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Dailymotion logo.svg tagged for Speedy to delete previous versions, but nominated for deletion

I've tagged this file for Speedy deletion, in order to replace the newer versions. Cronologically:

  • User:Marce79 overwritten this file with the new version. Newer logos should be uploaded with different filename and users should not overwrite older logos with the newer ones (unless to replace a non-free logo with a free alternative).
  • I've reverted the file to its original, and then, I uploaded the new logo, and checked the ussage of the both files.
  • I tagged for Speedy this file to delete the newer versions and keep only the original upload.
  • User:Thibaut120094 reverted my edition argumenting that the file does not meet the CSD.
  • I reverted the Thibaut120094's edition.
  • User:Knochen nominated the file for Deletion.

Notice that both files are in use.

There a thousand of files tagged for Speedy in the same way, and as an experienced user, I know that a thread in the COM:AN for this purpose is absolutly unnecessary (that {{Speedy}} comes into play). The COM:AN should not be flooded with threads when templates like {{Speedy}} exists to ease their administrative work.

Please speedy close this non-sense DR and delete the previous versions of the file. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  Done - versions moved around and DR closed. Green Giant (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@Amitie 10g: That's not the purpose of the {{Speedy}} template. Commons:History merging and splitting/Requests or COM:AN are here for that. Thibaut120094 (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

How about those magazines

How about those magazines Special:ListFiles/I_Think_magazine what uploader has been loaded, are those out of scope--Motopark (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

All deleted -FASTILY 06:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Could an administrator change the deletion language in Template:No OTRS permission since? The default language is "No OTRS permission since (date)". This is confusing and in one case that I saw, someone who sent an email to the permissions address thought it meant that they had to get permission from OTRS to upload a file. Could this language be changed to something similar to "No permission from the copyright holder processed by OTRS"? Thanks. --B (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This photo is from LG's official flickr account. So, presumably LG would own the copyright over the screen image. Therefore, would an Admin wish to pass this image? Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  Done I passed it. Taivo (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Uploading various low-quality logos, probably should all be nuked. Fry1989 eh? 17:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  Done deleted & blocked (Advertising-only account) --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

New user uploading various FC logos, many of which are probably copyvios. Fry1989 eh? 22:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

All deleted -FASTILY 10:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

New user uploading various low-quality FC logos that are probably copyvios. Fry1989 eh? 22:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

All deleted -FASTILY 10:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

History cleanup of some files due to copyvio

Hi ! When this file, this one and many other using the same copyvio elements obviously traced after a 2003 bookplate were deleted (see for instance the deletion log of this one), some previous revisions had been forgetten in a few files history. One of these copyvio revisions has even recently shown up, after a revertion. Could an admin perform a history cleanup :

and

Thank you !

Done -FASTILY 10:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Click me for a special prize!!

OK, it's a click bait title, but how else will we ever clear our DN backlog?

They say that justice delayed is justice denied, I'd hope we could clear the March deletion requests before May. Anyone game to help, please head over to the DN pages and clear whatever you can. I think we're feeling the loss of a very active admin in this section of Commons and can use all the help we can get. Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Yesterday and today I cleaned 12th of April, closing more than 250 deletion requests. Please close the last ones on that day also. Taivo (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Lol, now there are too many of us closing DR's at the same time :p. Natuur12 (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Created a admin-only watchlist notice (diff) --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Great, we now managed to close all DRs of March. But there are still 3 weeks of April to close. --Didym (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Excellent! We keep picking away at it, we'll have April closed just in time for May! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  Comment There's only a very few left on [10]. Have at it!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
In Russian wiki I nominated a photo for deletion on 17th of February and today discovered, that the request is still not closed. Some requests are open since July 2014 … Good to be in Commons. Taivo (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
That almost sounds like one of the old Cold War jokes... In America we close DNs in 3 weeks, in Russia it can take 3 months! .... Just kidding.   Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Why?, is Wikimedia Commons supposed to be for/from US citizens only? -- Tuválkin 01:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
When I was still active on the Russian Wikipedia, I was the one closing a large share of XfDs, and we managed to keep the backlog reasonable. After I left four years ago, the backlog quickly exceeded one year, since some administrators there like to talk and to teach others, but do not like to work. Then reasonable people came, and the backlog started to slowly go down.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Made a huge gap in the nominations between 8 and 18th of April, but as this is my first time really diving into the deletion nominations in the role of closing admin I left the difficult cases and also the ones in a foreign language. Basvb (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Could I get an admin to (1) make sure you agree with my contention that a crop showing only the text is PD-ineligible and (2) revdelete the old version of File:The hidden words, Printed Canton 1937.jpg? We do not have permission from the photographer, but a completely 2D scan/photo should not be copyrightable and the original subject depicted (plain non-creative text) is not copyrightable, so it looks PD-ineligible to me. --B (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  Deleted the first revision of the file. Not sure about (1) --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Please delete

Uploader says that source picvtures are oen but I can found 4 pictures from google File:Gobi montage.png, please close deletion request and inform uploader that don't upload copyvios--Motopark (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I deleted 4 files but I am afrais a major part of the contribution of User:Magentic Manifestations is copyright violation. Do not have time to check right now unfortunately.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Help requested....

Moved to COM:VPC for review. No admin action needed for now. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Search or Filter media by type of license?

It would be so helpful to be able to browse and search media by the type of license. For example, sometimes I need to find only Public Domain images. As things are now, I have to look at the details for each image one at a time to see if it is public domain. Being able to filter or search and specify, for example, that I want to see only public domain images would be a great time-saver.

You can use "hastemplate:Template" if your looking for a specific template. For PD-files "hastemplate:PD-Layout" will do good, although it's not ideal. See this search for an example. you can also use "incategory:" if all files are in a certain (very big) category) or both. extention might have some more useful features. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Olga Havlová - portrét.jpg restore

Hello, I would like to ask for restoring File:Olga Havlová - portrét.jpg as the permission came to OTRS under same number as in File:Olga Havlová s Václavem Havlem.jpg. Thank you --Mates (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Arabic editor

I would be interested in the non-Google-Translate translation of the box placed on my talk page at this diff from my talk page. My Arabic is rusty for many years, but it doesn't appear to be WikiLove. It probably pertains to his family photo album currently nominated for deletions. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

My Arabic is simple (and I only know Qur'anic Arabic), but that edit is straightforward. He's done nothing but create a section titled "reprimand" or "scolding," with his photo with the same caption. Nothing to do, it's not seriously uncivil, though he's a clueless noob and apparently created a joke article on ar.wikipedia.[11], which I fixed.
Since he's smiling, why not take it as Wikilove? Maybe message him back, similarly. He looks like a nice kid. I've voted in the DR, and I'll drop him a note. --Abd (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I got one to because I reverted him when he vandalised Ellin's talk page but I find the google translate translation pretty creepy. Natuur12 (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
"I give you life," with the "Real life barnstar." This is an active child, probably highly intelligent in certain ways, and way out of his element. The truly problematic thing he did was to edit User:Ellin Beltz (it wasn't the talk page) -- which was after my message to him. But I've seen this from children. If he does that again, short block, escalate, yatta yatta. I'll see if I can reach him. Sometimes it works. --Abd (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I protected my user page, with edits at top directing people to the talk page to prevent any mistakes like that happening again. Thanks @Natuur12 for the fast revert. He looks a bit tall to be a child but I see what you're saying Abd about having seen this before. Thanks for the help! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I have seen open deletion request from same picture from other user, please check--Motopark (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I founded it File:Doug Fetters.jpg--Motopark (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

file import request from mr-wikipedia

Hi,

Requesting sysop/ admin support in importing and activation w:mr:File:Licensing tutorial mr.svg from mr-wikipedia to commons.

Thanks and Regards

Mahitgar (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mahitgar:   Done. See File:Licensing tutorial mr.svg. Now the file will be automatically fetched by the software :-) (see m:Licensing tutorial). Can you please add a description in mr? --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Need administrator action to add {{vector version available|File:CrystalClearActionApply.svg}} to a protected page. I had the request first at File talk:Crystal Clear action apply.png but seems no one is watching this page. I'm trying to get the image off the Top 200 "should be vector" list, so need someone to remove {{SVG|symbol}} and add the above vector version available template. Offnfopt(talk) 14:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  Done Changed protection to [Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Gas stations in the United States

Hi. I just noticed that the entire Category:Gas stations in the United States tree was relocated to Category:Petrol stations in the United States. This strikes me as a terrible idea, because nobody in the US uses the term petrol station, and I expect many don't even know what it means. What's more troubling, though, is how the move occurred. There was a CFD page created, but the entire process was opened, closed, and executed by one user (pinging Wieralee (talk · contribs) without participation from anyone else. I'm not as familiar with the practices on Commons as I am on Wikipedia, but I do know that would never be acceptable there. Any thoughts? - Eureka Lott 12:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  • @EurekaLott: it always hurts me, when someone makes accusations that have no basis in reality. I'd requested for moving this category on 4th of April 2015. It's told that user can move the category if there is no objection after 14 days. On 17th of April the Category was reported to Categories for discussion/2015/04. It's told that user can make changes (described in Category for discussion) if there is no objection after 14 days. 14 days passed twice, nobody even spoke a word.
All the procedures were fulfilled. Wieralee (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Wieralee referred me here after I left a note on his/her talk page saying almost exactly the same thing that I see Eureka Lott says here. I'm not sure where there is an admin issue in this, so I don't know why it's on this page, but I guess there is a discussion is. There was no notification on most of the affected pages. I had Category:Gas stations in Washington (state) on my watchlist, but not Category:Gas stations in the United States; I suspect many others were in similar situations. I don't think anything down was procedurally "illegal", but I think a wrong decision was made, and that most of the people who would be concerned were unaware the decision was even being considered. - Jmabel ! talk 15:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wieralee raises a good point. What is the correct procedure when nominating a category for renaming or deletion? Is it okay to close a discussion that you opened? I couldn't find any guidance either way. I think it's a poor idea for any one editor to essentially act as judge, jury, and executioner, but that's just my opinion. - Eureka Lott 17:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I would undo this rename myself if I felt I were competent (I don't work with categories and do not know the logistics). Commons:Rename a category says "where a category name has been in use for a long time or a lot of items [...] Tag these with a {{Move}} notice. Start a discussion on a talk page, and link to it from any other relevant categories, consider posting a note on the Village pump and/or Commons:Categories for discussion too. Let consensus develop before going on with a bot rename." (emphasis added) Silence is not consensus; this move was inept. Эlcobbola talk 15:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The situation extends to other categories as well, see Category:Petrol station signs in the United States. Same situation, I don't see any discussion prior to this change, the category has been in use for a long time and as it pertains the the United States where these buildings are called "Gas Stations" I really fail to see the need for this en masse, change without consensus. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I was going through the Top 200 symbol images that should use vector graphics page and File:Knewsticker.png is currently protected so I can't replace the {{SVG|symbol}} template with {{vector version available|Newspaper Cover.svg}}. Could someone make this change for me, or unprotect the page so I can make the change? Offnfopt(talk) 17:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit: I am also having the same issue with File:Imbox protection.png, the vector for it is {{vector version available|Padlock-light-silver.svg}}Offnfopt(talk) 17:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

incorrect location

Bridge photo #122 is not at location advertised: Naguabo. I live there (east coast just south of Ceiba) and we have no such bridge and no such river. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.162.96 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The file is question from the anon is File:Bridge No. 122.jpg, this also would be better suited at COM:VP IMHO. Bidgee (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Or the file’s discussion page, for starters at least.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Please revert and delete all versions of Seetun (talk · contributions · Statistics) because the user has overwritten the original file with a copyvio from (example) http://thaipremierleague.co.th/2014/ld1clubs.overview.php?clubID=41 (Copyright 2014 Thai Premier League Co.) = http://thaipremierleague.co.th/the_club/admin/images/stadium/Korat.jpg (last modified: 07.2014, per exif a work by "Chop Dhepbandal"). Thx. Gunnex (talk) 07:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  Done - Green Giant (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Can an Admin who knows the correct PD license for this flickr image please correct the license and mark it? The flickrbot doesn't pass it--since this is a new flickr license--and I don't know the right license. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: I'm not a administrator but I went ahead and updated the license.Offnfopt(talk) 06:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I passed the image, although there is no freedom of panorama in Italy. Let's hope, that the house is enough old. Taivo (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Speedy "speedy" if someone could

It would be great if this image could be quickly killed. It is inappropriate and the account concerned is locked on Meta. Personally I think it should be oversighted... Cheers --Herby talk thyme 10:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

  Done by Denniss. Taivo (talk) 07:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Out of scope

I believe this material does not fit here. Palosirkka (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  Deleted Yann (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Undelete request handler

Hi, Perhelion has written a undeletion request handler to allow easy closing of udel requests. You can enable the gadget at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets in the "Tools for authorized users" section. Best :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Could the flickr user have taken this satellite image? Is it own work? I don't know. The license is PD. I will have to sign off very soon as pass 1 AM here where I am but perhaps someone can check. If its OK, please feel free to pass it. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

  Done I passed the other photos, but not the first, which I nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record: I have speedy-deleted the unused screenshot File:Philippe (WMF) - I don't want.jpg for being out of COM:SCOPE and as its description contained potentially libelous content. It had been uploaded by globally-blocked User:ES-ABA, which is said to be a sockpuppet of Russavia. This morning I and other admin-colleagues, without question, have speedily indef-blocked (and cleaned after) 3 vandal-accounts who were spreading slanderous attacks against Russavia. Whatever we think of the WMF as an institution, Philippe Baudette deserves the same kind of courtesy or protection. --Túrelio (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Although I do agree that Philippe should get any applicable courtesy I actually saw that image before you deleted it and IMO Philippe is going well out of his way on the issue of Russavia. Far enough out of his way in fact that I can't help but question the appropriateness of his zealousness towards Russavia. I know that the whole Russavia situation is drawing on peoples nerves but that doesn't mean we should allow a WMF employee to violate site policy and act inappropriately because they personally have a bone to pick with the editor such as in this case. I have seen editors who do far worse things to the site who do not have the history of positive contributions to the sites so it really bothers me when I see one like Russavia get steamrolled because one person in a position of power is allowed to do it. As some here may know, I know how that feels. Reguyla (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm readily admitting to being hypocritical here, as I was forwarded these extracts at the time they were leaked from OTRS-wiki, but I do believe we should have a blanket policy banning the upload of content or screenshots taken from OTRS-wiki without permission from the OTRS administrators. I know it's covering this issue up to a certain extent, but having discussions elsewhere, it's rightly being pointed out that there could be inadvertent release of sensitive information, with unintended consequences. Just floating this here and now for a bit more input. Nick (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

OTRS is not a guaranteed secret service, neither is it secure nor specifically operated for the benefit of Commons. If anyone wants to see an OTRS policy for Commons then they should propose it here, not presume that the unclear policies about OTRS written on a secret closed wiki are wise, just or ever were supported by the Commons community. -- (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Personally I agree with both of you. There has never been an expectation of privacy regarding OTRS data and since its regularly leaked any such assumption would be foolish on the parts of anyone involved. With regard to what Nick said I also agree that openly retaining OTRS data without the OTRS admins is just a bad policy and should be avoided. I don't necessarily think it should have to contain privacy data for that either. I do think there should be an ability for that information to be released at some point and in some way (even if redacted to a point to protect identities and personal details) although I do not think commons would necessarily be the best place for that. Maybe Wikisource IMO would be a better location to host that. Also, just for FYI, this has been brought up at Jimbo's page, so we are being watched! :-) Reguyla (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Logos on Commons

Please delete all of the images uploaded by Parvizaria. They are all logos which have to be used as a Non-free content in Wikipedia. Thanks Mehran (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Pretty much all of them look to be beneath Germany's threshold of originality, and many below the US's. We'd need to figure out what Iran's is, but e.g. File:Softlan-fa.png is under most thresholds.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi there,

Can you hide the first version of the file ? Contains a non-free icon. Thanks. Thibaut120094 (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

  Done Pleclown (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion request (double upload)

Dear admins, I would like to request the deletion of File:Smart Beach Tour 2015 - Isabel Schneider doubleupload.jpg since it is an accidental double upload. I had still an unedited version of the image under a different name in the same folder I used for the UploadWizard and noticed the glitch only at the stage of entering image information (when it is too late to remove and image from the collection). Best regards --Curnen (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

  Done Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Spain logos & flags help needed

Greetings: Please see [12] for a series of municipal logos and flags all claimed to be own work. As far as I can tell these are all Spanish from Spain logos. Would an editor with more familiarity with the topics of logos and flags of Spain please take a look at the gallery? Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Per "Commons doesn't need you to drop your pants", all their uploads should be nuked. Fry1989 eh? 21:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

  Done, all deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Rename request: File:Baoxi Railway Yellow River Bridge.jpg

Please help to rename the File:Baoxi Railway Yellow River Bridge.jpg to File:Baoshen Railway Yellow River Bridge.jpg, due to a typing error. Thanks. --千里走单骑 (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. My name is Steve. I was directed to the above link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raul654/Raul%27s_laws) while searching in google for the following: https://www.google.com/search?q=rule+with+extreme+prejudice+and+unction&oq=rule+with+extreme+prejudice+and+unction&aqs=chrome..69i57.16135j0j8&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

I was surprised and actually grateful for the search string result, even though it had nothing to do with what I was originally looking for. I wanted to tell someone how much I appreciated the Raul654 "laws" of Wikipedia operational difficulties.

As an "end user" of Wikipedia search engine, I cannot remember the last time I ever had a "scholarly" issue with a Wikipedia subjects content. I'm not sure what this means or possibly insinuates about my overall level of intelligence, but I am pleased to state that I have been very comfortable with the kinds of information I have read about thousands of different topics covered in Wikipedia.

I read about half way through all the various corollaries presented by Raul654. I wonder if 99.99% of all these objections and territory wars stuff that appears to be going on within various topics contained in Wikipedia, does this happen so called "behind the scenes"?

If not, then I wonder what this might mean or suggest about me, and my ability to discern the "truth" from the "fiction" that is purportedly suggested to be contained within any particularly "contentious" Wikipedia article? The fact that I have not had the experience of coming across such an article contained in Wikipedia (that I am aware of) is somewhat disturbing to me on a deeper, more fundamental level, suggesting to me that I am not nearly as smart as I think, and suggestively project of myself to the rest of the world. I hate being ignorant of my own ignorance.

Judging by the seemingly endless list of corollaries and the difficulties that the editors face when tackling various subjects that certain individuals feel and care deeply about, suggests to me by way of implication, that either I am woefully ignorant of the kinds of topics that generate such rancor among the rank and file, or that my self generated image of my being a kind of educated "renaissance man" is laughably absurd. I am at odds my own growing realization that I am but a mere dilettante of practical wisdom and knowledge, and recoil from my own pretense that thought I knew at least little bit about a lot of stuff, whereas now I think the beginning of my wisdom begins with my realization that I don't know much about anything in particular and even less about everything at all.

mrc109 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrc109 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 4 May 2015‎ (UTC)

  Comment The piece you cite above is a private essay on the English Wikipedia. This is a page on Wikimedia Commons devoted to giving Administrators here on Commons notice of questions and problems, so your comments above are out of place and probably won;t receive any comment here. The best place to discuss the essay is probably User talk:Raul654. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  ResolvedNothing to do here. Yann (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Admin-Bewerbung

Sorry for my poor english, deshalb weiter auf deutsch:

Ich lade seit Jahren Bilder auf commons hoch. Manchmal passiert es, das ein Bildname geändert werden muss. Meistens ist das mein Fehler, manchmal mach ich das für User von WLE/WLM. Da bleibt immer eine Weiterleitung zurück, die völlig unnötig ist. Auf DE war ich mal Admin, bis ich die Rechte zurückgegeben habe. Mir geht es nur darum, das ich die überflüssigen Weiterleitungen vermeide. Mehr nöchte ich gar nicht. Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Wenn ich Dateien umbenennen muss, unterdrücke ich meist die WL, aber sonst wird das hier kaum beachtet. Du kannst aber die WL zum schnellen Löschen vorschlagen. {{speedydelete|Unused and implausible redirect --~~~~}} Bewerbung als Admin geht auf Commons:Administrators/Requests, aber nur wegen der Redirects wirst du wohl keine Mehrheit bekommen. --A.Savin 22:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Du kannst als Admin die Weiterleitung unterdrücken, ich als User nicht. Deshalb hab ich mich gerade fürchterlich geärgert. Ich möchte nicht, das ich andere mit meinen Fehlern belästige. OK, Schnappsidee und deshalb erledigt. Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

  Done

Commons bug ?

This file, File:Catedral Sé (17066836590).jpg should show in Category:Cloisters of Sé do Porto and not in Category:Porto where it is showing actually, despite the categorization made. --JotaCartas (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems fine from here. Have you tried clearing your browser cache and reloading the page?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I cleared my browser cache, and now everything is alright. Thank you. --JotaCartas (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

  Done

Error spotted

The picture http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Embroidery_detail,_Phoebe_Traquair_(angels_carrying_a_dead_child).JPG states it is embroidery by Phoebe Traquair. Actually it is a painting by John Duncan and called St Bride. Just thought someone should change it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.220.67 (talk • contribs)

  Done by McZusatz. Taivo (talk) 08:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

mass renaming needed

Please rename all promotional pictures from Special:ListFiles/Crissiburnell, there are web-address in the name--Motopark (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  Done - all uploads deleted and user notified. Green Giant (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I just indefblocked the user who is confirmed sockpuppet of Tobias Conradi, known also as Derianus and Tamawashi (see meta:Steward requests/Checkuser#FreightXPress@wikidata). None of these socks has been previously blocked on Commons as far as I know, though they are blocked on Wikidata and English Wikipedia, where they caused a lot of disruption. This sock came to my attention after they started to move geographical categories out of consensus, and when their attention was drawn to this fact by multiple users started to defend their actions. This was still ok, but then they claimed they are not a sock and CU's are wrong. Since I had to deal with Derianus on em.wp and with Tamawashi and Andrea Shan, another sock, on Wikidata, I know how it was going to develop, and that it would cause a lot of extra disruption. Therefore I decided to block them indef, to spare the time of the community. Any administrator who is willing to talk to them may unblock them but please monitor their actions since they have a tendency to get out of hand quickly. Also advice how to roll back all of their edits would be appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

5 days passed, most of the edits were not reverted, and it is clear that Yaroslav will spend months on cleaning this up. This mass revert is an obvious task for a bot having admin rights, because every human user can spend his or her time in a more intelligent and productive manner.
I am astonished by the fact that massive vandalism is not taken care of here, on Wikimedia Commons. For me this raises a very serious question of why I should invest my time into a project where obvious admin actions are not taken. --Alexander (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: If you want to roll back everything there are scripts for that: i.e. m:User:Hoo_man/smart_rollback.js. --Rschen7754 05:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The script can't revert category moves. Maybe COM:CDC should be used. --Steinsplitter (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Indeed, most of the mess are cat moves, and some of them have been moved twice, which complicate things. I will have a look at CDC.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

We are screwed

We are screwed without [13]. Is there anyone who knows enough scripting to take on reproducing what this page does now that it's admin has quit? This was so useful I'm amazed that it's not a permanent part of our tool kit. Barring the ability to make it work again, anyone know how to see the "new users feed" without it? Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's hope that the user who operated that page will return... --Stefan4 (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
As well as cleanup of transfers from other projects.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Unblocking the bot might work for some time at least … --Leyo 20:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • While it's not quite the same, [14] is the uploads of "new users". If you also have the "popups" gadget enabled, you should get a popup with a small thumbnail and the wikitext of the page on mouse hover over the links. Lupo 21:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • And then there's [15], which shows uploads by users not in any local user group (i.e., such as autocreated accounts of people uploading through a Wikipedia). Many of these users have low edit counts, too. Lupo 21:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Tools seems back again. :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Bearbeitungsfilter

Bitte die Datei File:Michael Kühntopf.jpg auf die Version von User:HaTikwa, 15:22, 22. Dez. 2010, zurücksetzen, um diesen seltsamen Grünstich zu entfernen. Ich selbst kann das nicht, denn die Aktion „kollidiert mit dem Sperrbegriff“ .*[Mm]ichael.[kK].hntopf.*. Grüße    • hugarheimur 23:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Ist die Rücksetzung denn unstrittig? Optisch stimme ich da durchaus zu. Aber die grüne Fassung war immerhin seit >2,5 Jahren aktiv. --Túrelio (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Das ist nicht der Missbrauchfilter sondern die TitleBlacklist. Kühntopf ist global geblacklistet (und das sicher aus guten Grund). --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
+1 Also ich finde die grüne Version auch überflüssig (um nicht zu sagen Quatsch, dass eine Version lange "genutzt" wurde hat leider nichts zu sagen). Zudem ist ein Benutzer der einzig dieses Bild bearbeitet eh erstmal suspekt.User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  11:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Why isn't it possible to overwrite files if the file name appears on the title blacklist? Isn't the title blacklist only supposed to prevent people creating new pages and moving pages, whereas editing existing pages should be possible? I think that the version from 2010 looks better than the version from 2012. The file could be {{Split}} if someone prefers the green version. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
@Túrelio: Wenn mich der Filter nicht gehindert hätte, hätte ich das Bild jedenfalls ohne Umschweife revertiert. Dass es sich so lange in diesem Zustand gehalten hat, ist für mich dabei kein Argument. Ich sehe ehrlich gesagt auch sonst keinen Grund, der für die Version mit "Grünstich" spräche. Man könnte natürlich, solltet ihr anderer Meinung sein, die alte Version unter neuem Dateinamen hochladen -- allerdings müsste das wohl wegen besagter Sperrliste ebenfalls ein Admin machen. Grüße    • hugarheimur 18:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted the file. Should anyone be interested in the green version, they can upload it under a new name. --rimshottalk 19:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Although I guess that only a sysop could upload the other version under a meaningful name. Not that I think it’s necessary. Kind regards    • hugarheimur 19:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

License review on file

Can someone take a look at File:VT-EVB.jpg? The Flickr source is marked ARR, but there are comments by the Flickr acct holder confirming that they've uploaded it to Commons under a CC license. The image is marked for review, but I'm not sure how to pass a file marked ARR. Thanks. INeverCry 21:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Reviewed, comment at Flickr page is sufficient. --Denniss (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyone up for a lot of moves?

I've just discovered hundreds of categories that have been given atrociously long names; one such is Category:Achmun Creek Bridge, Spanning Achmun Creek at County Road 222, Ola, Yell County, AR HAER, a category for a bridge that should simply be Category:Achmun Creek Bridge. Would someone be willing to keep a careful eye on the requests page for CommonsDelinker, or willing to have me leave a list of categories on your talk page? I really don't feel like recategorising thousands of images, and apparently (unlike at en:wp) if I move a category, there's no bot that will move the contents to the new name. I don't yet have a full list, but it won't be that hard to gather; it's just one user creating all of these absurdly long names, so I'll just need to go through the user's contributions and filter for categories and for page creations. Nyttend (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend, Delinker would be best but I'm happy to help if you let me know with a list. Green Giant (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Please can an Admin 1. delete this image from a flickrwashing account, 2. blacklist this flickr account. Finally, can this uploader be banned for a very long time for uploading copyright violations--as his/her talkpage suggests a history of such behavior sadly. Best Regards and Goodnight from Vancouver, Canada where its nearly 2 AM. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  Done - initially I blocked for a month because the previous blocks have been for 1 day and 1 week but in retrospect the user has not made a single talk page edit since starting uploading in August 2013. I don't think a month block will have much effect because it appears the user is not aware of the blocks. Therefore I've blocked them indefinitely but if they do make an unblock request, I will be happy to discuss a more definite block length. For what it's worth, I think the Flickr user may or may not be the person in the photo but it is unclear and will need a bit more researching. In the meantime I've blacklisted the Flickr ID but again I'm willing to delist if there is a good reason. Thank you for the report Leoboudv. Green Giant (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment: Thank You for your help. I think that this a fair response. If the user makes an unblock request, one can give reasons for a block and consider lifting it on a temporary basis or not. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

[[:]]

Admin, Please delete this controversial map [[:]]. This map shows "Indian administered Kashmir" as "Indian Occupied Kashmir" which is clear troll. While this image don't show "Pakistan administered Kashmir" as "Pakistan Occupied Kashmir". Term "Occupied" is not used in Wikipedia articles. In standard articles like Kashmir conflict, Jammu and Kashmir, Azad Kashmir always there (must) use of term "administered" Kasmir not "Occupied" Kashmir. You can read these BBC and New York Times news too. [16], [17], [18], [19]. Thank you.--Human3015 (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Deleted, the file is at least a copyright violation, regardless of any issues mentioned above. --Didym (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

...has followed me from English WP (where I am most active), to here. Can some admin please protect my talk-page, and do the necessary rev-del and blocking? Thanks, Huldra (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  Done Natuur12 (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much; much appreciated. Please keep both my and Shabazz´s user-pages and talk-pages "watched", as he is sure to be back. (He has been at it for 5 years now....) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This image was removed from Wikipedia for copyright violations. One user claiming it self work again posted it to Wikipedia. File:China Pakistan Economic Corridor Map.jpg. This image is copied from this website --Human3015 (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Could an admin please move this back, and investigate how a new user is able to move this page. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  Done - It is possible to add Commons:Photo challenge/* to the title blacklist if this happen ofter. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm puzzled that new users can do this sort of thing at all. -- Colin (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, a number of the files recently uploaded by Supercatwalk are out-of-process recreations of content previously deleted as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Supercatwalk. Could an admin please confirm, re-delete any files that we already reached consensus on, and (if appropriate) issue a warning to the user not to try to bypass proper procedures? LX (talk, contribs) 15:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  Done About half a dozen of these were re-uploads of images deleted in the earlier DR. I've deleted those. Of the new uploads, only two look like selfies; I've sent the others to DR at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Supercatwalk. I've also warned the acct. INeverCry 20:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place for this request: Please delete Category:Tal gilboa. I've changed the name to Category:Tal Gilboa, with a Capital G and changed all its content to the new Category. Thank you. Liadmalone (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  Done King of 16:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, nothing really wrong but I just want to notify : User:Hedwig in Washington deleted a file (File:Webysther 20150428130842 - Painel Tiradentes de Candido Portinari.jpg), the issue is that file was in this nomination which was in the Log/May 2015. To have used CommonsDelinker made that : [20], the result is this :{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/}} remained in the log which full copy the current FPC page in the log. I remedied the problem manually. But I think administrators, when deleting a file previously FPcandidate, should not use CommonsDelinker, or modify it, or add manually the name of the file in the log where the CommonsDelinker deleted it. Hope you will understand my English. -- Christian Ferrer 07:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Far from me the idea to ask to my friends administrators to come back in the Middle Ages, that is a very strange idea. If you have a better solution or if you are able to find one, feel free to apply...there was of course nothing compulsory in my suggestions above. :) -- Christian Ferrer 13:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it is a bug in CommonsDelinker or somewhere else. There is no need to rename or delete part of the nomination page while deleting or renaming the file as the CommonsDelinker did above. It is frequently happening while moving a file which break all "assessment" tags. Jee 14:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
A cursory glance to the diff offered in the OP suggests that it is to blame the irregular (or at least unexpected) construct in use in FPC pages: {{Commons:Foo/File:Bar.jpg}}. I’d suggest that at least the bit "File:", which seems to confuse CommonsDelinker, could be left out (after all, a featured picture candidate is always a file…). Also, putting in double curly brackets (Mediawiki transclusion) anything not from the Template namespace is always risky…
On the other hand, granted, CommonsDelinker probably has no business deleting anything outside the “public” namespaces (articles/galleries, and categories, maybe also help and policy pages). In talk pages and project space, keeping a redlink is almost always better than have a file just disappeared.
-- Tuválkin 16:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Photo which probably I shouldn't have uploaded

Hi everyone, I recently uploaded a photo convinced of having understood the rights expressed on the website. The photo is the one of the President of the Italian Constitutional Court, and comes from the official website. In this link, it is explained the copyright of the website contents. After having uploaded the photo under the CC BY SA 3.0, I asked further opinions within the Italian wikibar dedicated to Commons, and we came to the conclusion the description of the copyrights is not very clear, and most probably the CC BY SA 3.0 is related to the open data on the website, and not the photos themselves. We felt probably it has to be deleted, and now I'm here to ask you further comments and eventually (unfortunately) the deletion of the photo itself. Please let me know what you think! If you need an eventual translation from Italian, no worries with that. I'm sorry if I eventually did a mess, the intentions were good. Torne (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Has been dealt with by Jaquen. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm requesting a temporary protection of this file since it keeps getting vandalised with unrelated uploads. This was first reported at the English WP today. De728631 (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The uploader has already been blocked, so perhaps protection is no longer needed. De728631 (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Category name change please

Hi, I am requesting a simple WikiCommons name change from MiaMia Bridge, to new name Redesdale Bridge on this page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=mia+mia+bridge&go=Go&uselang=en

That should then properly activate the link from the existing Redesdale Bridge wikipedia page for access to WikiCommons ( Media related to Redesdale Bridge at Wikimedia Commons ).

Atthis time, the above link only produces this empty page: "This page does not currently exist."

But in truth, the Redesdale Bridge photos are shown under the category: MiaMia Bridge.

If you know of any other linking that needs easy correcting for the WikiCommons content on Redesdale Bridge, please complete it. Thanks & cheers, JAYKAY144 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JAYKAY144 (talk • contribs)

  Done --Rudolph Buch (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I want to have all of my accounts on Wikimedia Commons blocked except this one,PaulBustion87

The reason I want my other accounts blocked is because sometimes I log into the other accounts on other wikis to check talk page messages, wiki emails, etc., and I'm worried that I will forget when I log in here that I'm logged in globally on the other account, I will make an edit, and be accused of sockpuppetry, so to make sure I don't edit under the wrong account while forgetting I'm logged in, I'd like my other accounts blocked. They are user:FDR, user:RJR3333, and user:PaulBustion88. Thank you. PaulBustion87 (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 02:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Duplicates?

In Category:Duplicate, there are currently quite a few requests by OlafJanssen to delete duplicates of images from a work on birds from the Netherlands. However, they're not quite exact duplicates or simply scaled down: If you compare, for example, File:Aardzwaluw, oeverzwaluw Hirundo riparia (7787842144) (2).jpg (which is nominated for deletion as a duplicate) with File:Nederlandsche vogelen (KB) - Riparia riparia (034b).jpg, you'll notice that the "duplicate" is a slightly different crop (you don't see the edges of the page as in the other file) and also has a larger file size (555 vs. 422 KiB). So, I'm not sure that these should really be deleted as "duplicates", but asking for more opinions... Gestumblindi (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The former was uploaded by OlafJanssen. Hence, he requests his upload to get deleted. --Leyo 20:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, yes, but we don't simply delete files because the uploader requests it. AFAIK we do "courtesy deletions" for uploader mistakes and the like, but not for valid, free files that have been on Commons for a long time, if they're in some way useful. So, my question is whether these alternative, "cleaner" crops are worth keeping, which I'm inclined to answer with "yes", but I'm not hell-bent on keeping either. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I am opposing courtesy deletions generally, but I wouldn't use this term here. --Leyo 20:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the considerations. Perhaps it might help to see the images in the Bird images from Koninklijke Bibliotheek cat are not used in any Wikimedia projects (other than Commons, according to the glamorous tool). The cropping of the deletion-requested files was done by one of my colleagues before he uploaded them to Flickr years ago. The main improvement of the images in the Nozeman-and-Sepp-cat is the much better metadata. I think that having two commonscats with overlapping (nearly) identical images is not helping Wikip/medians. Best regards, --OlafJanssen (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, still some might prefer the other crops for other purposes? After all, Wikimedia Commons isn't just a repository for Wikimedia projects, but for everyone. The better metadata from the newer uploads could be copied over to the other versions. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Does it hurt to keep both versions? After all, we do have quite a lot of variants of the Mona Lisa, too. You could link one image in the respective other one’s file description page (I personally like to do this using <gallery></gallery>-Tags). Rgds    • hugarheimur 22:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
When we have more than one copy of an image, with only slight differences, we routinely delete an item if it's sent through a DR. Why do we need to file DRs for these images? We generally object to deletion upon uploader's request because such images are generally still useful and we don't want to get rid of good images just because of the request of one person. Here, we lose nothing by getting rid of the extra images (they clog up categories and are similar enough that that they can cause confusion, especially if you don't know there are two versions of the same original), so we ought to go and delete them as duplicates upon the suggestion of the uploader. Nyttend (talk) 05:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, the "duplicates" are deleted by now (by INeverCry), and that's probably okay; though I'd still like to maintain that these were neither exact duplicates nor simply scaled down, so one could say that they in theory weren't really eligible for the duplicate deletion process. Certainly not a huge loss, of course... Gestumblindi (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Any Czech-speaking administrator?

I am dealing with this user (here the discussion) who kept on reverting categories / creating new one in opposition to the ones already existents while the discussion about a possible name change was still opened. Once I closed the discussion he kept on reverting and opening new discussions always on the same subject - in spite of a consensus for which there shouldn't be categories with the criteria he would like. I guess that an admin of his same language can explain things better than me. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Blackcat aka Sergio has his specific manners, e.g. he systematically conceals links to the affected discussions - at my discussion page as well as here, and omits systematically the step 5 from Commons:Categories_for_discussion#Closing_a_discussion (cross-reference the discussion on the category talk pages), even despite repeated reminders. Thus, the problems have their causes here:

The basic problem is that both closers closed the discussions without understanding problems and arguments from the discussion and without solving them. I mean reminders by Skeezix1000 and Ingolfson in the first Cfd and by me and Sardaka in the second one. Blackcat, ignoring the core problem of the CfD, even confessed at my talk page: "I do not care what was the discussion before."

The biggest problem consists in the fact that SteinsplitterBot at 2014-06-14 moved ca 50 categories "Houses of famous people (in ...)" and their content to new quasi-meta-category names "Houses by association (in ...)". There was no previous discussion nor consensus on such a rename and the new names are misleading and confusing, not corresponding to the content and function of the categories.

My English is not quite perfect but I think, I really need not any interpreter to Czech language. Problems which should be resolved here are:

  • to prevent rash closing of CfDs by incapable admins
  • to find some solution for the extensive problem caused by incompetent application of the two imperfect decisions.

I propose to reopen the second discussion ("Houses by association") and engage more experienced, acquainted and intelligent users to it. However, Blackcat is blocking continuance or reopen of the discussion.

A secondary problem is that Blackcat (in his captivation by his edit war) reverts also such my edits which cannot be reasonably opposed: e.g. I inserted Houses by association to the parent category Houses, and Blackcat reverted it. The same problem is with wrong interwikis of that category. --ŠJů (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Because i have been pinged: (Disclaimer) My bot is fulfilling category move requests upon admins's request at COM:CDC. :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I supposed it. However, you should a) detect and remove nonsensical requests (even if they comes from an admin), b) include the claimant's username to the edit summary. --ŠJů (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  1. it's not that the matter is debated. Is that there was a clear consensus not to use "categories by famous people" and you ignored that.
  2. you know that while a category is being discussed you should not make any changes. you kept on creating categories against the consensus that stated that famous people is not a criteria.
  3. you were warned not to go further
  4. generally you are not able to deal with community decision (two imperfect decisions., like it or not they were taken by consensus. Deal.with.it)
  5. you show little respect towards other co-commoners no matter their status (I'll pretend to ignore your engage more experienced, acquainted and intelligent users because I want to believe that is not what you wanted to say, but I'd advice you to avoid personal considerations. Everyone is entitled to take part to discussions and is not up to you to decide who is the expert and who is not. Consensus doesn't work this way.). -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Please try to focus to the problems described by respectable co-commoners in the discussions, not to yourself. And please, be less conceited: your (or anybody's) ill-founded closing decision is not a decision of community. Especially when you ignore (or not understand?) reminders and opinions from the community. -- ŠJů (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Tell me what was not clear in these words: community had decided that famous people is not a criterium for categorizing. Tell me what also was not clear in these words: you kept on creating categories opposed to the one you're discussing even though it's deprecated to do while a discussion is still opened. If it was not clear, this discussion is neither focused on the fact you were right or not on the merit, neither on me. It's focused on your problematic behaviour. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Could you explain to me once again what is the nature of the supposed misbehavior by ŠJů you are trying to prevent? All I can see is:
  1. ŠJů is not happy with Category:Houses by association, so starts a completely valid CfD about it.
  2. One other user replies in agreement to delete the category. No other opinions.
  3. You close the request as “keep”, not replying to anything in the discussion, but referring in general to some “general consensus”. (Then, during two hours, you warn ŠJů “[t]he discussion about the category has been closed” and threaten with blocking him, and after another nine minutes, you block him for 1 day. Quite a speed.)
All the time, ŠJů did not touch the category you are referring to at all. Also, you keep referring to a discussion about Category:Famous people, while ŠJů did not touch that category either. Deletion of a single category does not mean the exact words are now taboo. OK, we can move Category:Birthplaces of famous people to Category:Birthplaces; while we understand the meaning is identical, we avoid those problematic word, even though the category name senso strictu is nonsense. (Is the “criterium for categorizing” the fact anybody was born there? Obviously not.) But how should we rename Category:Houses of famous people so that we keep the (obvious) meaning, while not upsetting those allergic to the phrase “famous people”? I believe we should have a category structure allowing us to keep a house where O. Henry lived for a time (which is famous because of that) and a house where Beethoven lived for a time somewhere close. Is “by association” really a good replacement phrase? But all those questions should be discussed in the CfD, not here.
You are not supposed to “reject” a discussion, you are supposed to assess it and write a conclusion, if there is one. If you have a completely different opinion to all other participants in the discussion, do not just write your opinion as a conclusion, closing the discussion by force, and then even enforcing it by your administrative rights (excepting cases of obvious vandalism, etc.).
ŠJů is a long-term Commons editor who contributed a huge amount of work here, especially in the categorization. Disagreement among established users should be resolved by discussion, not by force.
I believe the best option would be to create a new discussion, trying to design the best structure for these categories, inviting all who participated in the previous discussions.
--Mormegil (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Images of books with blank covers

Is there some way we can keep people from uploading images of blank book covers? It is getting so that black and brown book covers are all that come up in certain image searches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.123.176.11 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 28 May 2015‎ (UTC)

Most book covers that contain photographs or other artwork have not been released under a free licence, so they cannot be uploaded. Only covers that are not original enough for copyright (i.e. very plain design), or that have clearly been released under a free licence can readily be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. De728631 (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Necessito de Ajuda Pois Duas Fotos Minhas Foram Eliminadas e as Outras Estão em Anãlise

Eu tirei as fotos de patrimônios históricos e públicos da cidade de Ilhéus e de outras regiões e dois usuários solicitaram eliminação imediata dos seguintes arquivos : File:Morro de Pernambuco Ilhéus Bahia.JPG e File:Baía do Pontal - Ilhéus Bahia 1.jpg . E solicitou aviso de eliminação dos seguintes ficheiros se assim a comunidade permitir após análise : Affected:

File:Lagoa Encantada ( Cachoeiras que banham a Lagoa ) Ilhéus Bahia 5.jpg And also:

File:Lagoa Encantada ( Cachoeiras que banham a Lagoa ) Ilhéus Bahia 4.jpg File:Lagoa Encantada Ilhéus Bahia 3.jpg File:Lagoa Encantada - Ilhéus Bahia 2.jpg File:Lagoa Encantada - Ilhéus Bahia 1.jpg File:Morro de Pernambuco.jpg

Os usuário que solicitaram foram: Yours sincerely, Yann (Discussão) 19:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC) e Achim (Discussão) 19:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Solicito uma revisão, pois essas fotos foram retiradas por mim e necessito uma resposta de qual o motivi do pedido de eliminação ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Muller Dos Santos Bispo (talk • contribs) 21:30, 28 May 2015‎ (UTC)

Can you read English? I speak very little Portuguese, thus I'll reply in English. The files have been filed for deletion because there are doubts that they might be yours. No EXIF data, several sources and so on. You should provide evidence that the works are actually yours. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 22:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Anna Freud photograph

Hello,

Wikimedia commons deleted the photograph I uploaded of Anna Freud [21],[22]. The reason they gave was because the copyright owner only gave me permission to publish the photograph on wikimedia commons, not anywhere for commercial or non-commercial use. Bryony Davies, curator of the Freud Museum, copyright owner of the photograph, has stated that I have permission to publish the photo in all venues, including commercial non-wiki venues. So is it ok for me to republish it now since I have the proper copyright permision? I do not publish emails in public because of problems that caused me in the past, but I have forwarded the email to one administrator and to Wikimedia Commons' response team. I can forward it to anyone else who asks to see verification.PaulBustion87 (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

If you've sent it to OTRS, unfortunately there is a bit of a backlog, so patience is advised. Please don't forward the email to anyone else and certainly don't publish it online. There is a slight misunderstanding that you should be aware of: permission for you to use the image is not sufficient for Commons. The permission has to be for anyone to re-use for any purpose, even commercially. Green Giant (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I repeat what I wrote above, "Bryony Davies, curator of the Freud Museum, copyright owner of the photograph, has stated that I have permission to publish the photo in all venues, including commercial non-wiki venues." I have already been given permission to use the photo anywhere, even commercially, and she has given permission for the photo to be reused by anyone else other than me anywhere also. PaulBustion87 (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems that the Freud Museum assumes that some images are in the public domain, but it is not really clear if that the case. See ticket:2015051910026347 for this image ([23]). This picture is from somewhere between 1913 and 1940, but there is no information about the photographer or where it was taken and/or published, so it is difficult to say anything. This one may be OK if taken in UK, but not elsewhere (see {{PD-UK-unknown}}). I suppose that the Freud Museum being in London, it applies the UK copyright rule for the documents it owns, but for Commons, we need more information. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

PaulBustion87, I have looked at your email to OTRS and I'm not convinced (yet) that the Freud Museum owns the copyright. Rummaging around in their website I've come across this photo which is probably the original. The photographer is Genia Brinitzer and the date is circa 1930. Copyright rules mean that if the photo was published in Germany, it will be out of copyright 70 years after the death of the photographer, because she is the original copyright holder. It is entirely possible that she transferred the copyright but as it stands we cannot host this image unless you obtain a license from Brinitzer or her heirs. Green Giant (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

File import (en wikipedia to commons) transfer request

Hi,

I request admin support in en wikipedia to commons transfer of w:en:File:Qxz-ad178.gif by File import. This file seems to have cc licencing available.

I want to use this file on mr-wikipedia.

Thanks and Regards

Mahitgar (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

  Done by Mahitgar earlier today. Green Giant (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Enable gadget "Place categories above content, but below image on file description pages" by default

See my VP/Proposal from March: Where do I have to ask to make this happen? In the absence of other options, the consensus to do this seems quite clear to me. --El Grafo (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Bonjour, il semble que les uniques contributions de cet utilisateurs aux projets Wikimédia aient été l'importation d'images dans le seul but d'auto-promotion, voir sa page ici sur Commons ou sur enwiki. -- Christian Ferrer 05:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

  Done User warned, deletion requested. Yann (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR DELETION OF FILES

HI PLEASE DELETE ALL MY FILES AND PHOTOS UPLOADED ON THE WIKIMEDIA COMMONS. THANKS. COLEEM KALIM — Preceding unsigned comment added by KCOLEEM (talk • contribs) 03:48, June 5, 2015‎ (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 04:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Image

I saw an image, which belongs to Russian Government. Is this Copyright violation? [24] 117.5.42.14 13:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The image does not belong to the Russian government; the physical letter does. The copyright, however, belongs to Ho Chi Minh's heirs or the state of Vietnam.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
So, is this Copyright violation? Because Ho Chi Minh don't have the heirs, and this image was captured (Print screen) by Yeuem123 (from a Russian website's image), he don't have state of Vietnam's agreement117.5.42.14 04:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Ich habe eine neue Dateiversion dieser Datei auf Commons überspielt. Irgendwie hat sich aber ein Fehler eingeschlichen. So dass die zur Bearbeitung vorher auf meinen Rechner überspielte Datei als neue Dateiversion wieder nach Commons überspielt wurde. Ich habe also die neue überarbeitete Dateiversion noch mal nach Commons überspielt. Nun wird aber als aktuelle Datei, 16:36, 6. Jun. 2015, die unbearbeitete Datei angezeigt. Als aktuell sollte die Dateiversion von 16:33, 6. Jun. 2015 erscheinen. Was kann man unternehmen? Wie kann man eine Datei als aktuell festlegen? Wie lassen sich nicht weiter benötigte, eine ist ja nun durch den Fehler doppelt in den Dateiversionen zu finden, Dateiversionen wieder entfernen? Silvio Ludwig (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Das technische Problem, war wohl ein Zeitproblem. Der Server scheint etwas länger gebraucht zu haben bis die richtige Datei überall angezeigt wird. Das Problem mit der falsch eingeblendeten Datei ist erst mal passé. Es sind nun eben ein paar Dateiversionen zuviel dabei. Sollte man diese entfernen? Silvio Ludwig (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Die alten Dateiversionen können bleiben. Das Problem war vermutlich ein Caching problem. :-) Lg --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Wie kann man eine Dateiversion von mehreren als aktuelle festlegen? Silvio Ludwig (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Die zuletzt hochbeladene ist die aktuellste. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Please delete from this file the 1st version uploaded by Omar2564 in 2009 which is copyvio via https://www.panoramio.com/photo/16805284 (2008, © All rights reserved by "sugitzu"). See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Omar2564. Thx. Gunnex (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please close 4 DR in my talk page

One user has been created 4 deletion request, please close those DR because I'm owner of those pictures--Motopark (talk) 04:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  Done. -- Geagea (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Please move this gallery

Benutzer:Ribax to user gallery area.--Motopark (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Deleted, the same content is also available on the creator's user page. --Didym (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyvios, I’m afraid

Check the uploads by TadelaktOY, please. They’re all copyvios (from this site), I’m afraid. --Geohakkeri (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  Done Files deleted. Thibaut120094 (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
These are unlikely to be copyvios, they're far more likely to be a GF contribution (albeit somewhat COI) by a new corporate editor (Have you not noticed what Tadelakt Oy means as a user name, especially in relation to a site http://tadelakt.fi ?)
Yet again, a WMF project goes off half-cocked and acts to WP:BITE and drive away a new editor. We are supposed to be encouraging such editors, not threatening them with bans for "violating copyright" with their own property! Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
http://tadelakt.fi website clearly says © 2015 Tadelakt Oy. All rights reserved., we need proof of permission on OTRS or TadelaktOY to change the license on their website. Regards, Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed we do. So we should treat them as a corporate contributor and show them how to do it properly, not threaten them as a vandal. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Spanish speaker needed

Could a Spanish speaking admin (or other experienced editor) please contact this user since it seems they do not understand why their first file was deleted. See Commons:Deletion_requests/File:SIF-AL~1.JPG. --Pitke (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. -- M\A 16:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC) (former sysop)

Unappropriate user name

Shold this be considered an unappropriated username? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it was suppressed. INeverCry 21:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

autopatrolled

Could someone please be so kind to flag User:Vodnokon4e (sysop at bg wp) as autopatrolled asap because of his work on WLE files and cats. Unpatrolled backlog should not explode, thanks. --Achim (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

  Done Thibaut120094 (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! --Achim (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Errors, errors, and more errors

Yesterday and today I've gotten 50+ of these while closing daily DRs with DelReqHandler:

API request failed (internal_api_error_DBQueryError): [5fb8a4d0] Database query error

Can someone who knows what they're doing technically report this etc? I'd really appreciate it. INeverCry 01:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@INeverCry: Not sure but I think when these DR are created, they are not correctly. Maybe the nomination pages were listed in the Deletion requests and created but the template on the image has still not completed correctly. I say this because on many of my DR an error message appears and then disappears when I purge the cache.
This page is a member of Category:Incomplete deletion requests - missing subpage because it is incomplete (you failed to create the subpage Commons:Deletion requests/File:Taxpayersfullband.jpg. PLEASE fill in all five variables and create the subpage!) (Note: This error may appear due to a caching issue; purge this page's cache to fix it.)
This may be a cache issue, try to refresh image before closing the DR. Hope it helps, however, this might not be it. -- Christian Ferrer 16:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T98706 --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, does that script delete on at a time or use any parallelism at all? Aaron Schulz (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
@Aaron Schulz: If the user clicks on two delete links, it sends out two delete post requests, regardless of any running requests. It's a primitive script but IMHO MediaWiki installations should be able to enqueue requests in case their immediate, parallel processing would lead to errors. -- Rillke(q?) 20:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The script in question is MediaWiki:Gadget-DelReqHandler.js; I was working on a new version but ran out of time. -- Rillke(q?) 20:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Partial deletions - lots of them

In the past few days doing DR closures, I've run into about 20 files where my deletion through DelReqHandler has deleted the image, but left the rest of the file page still visible, including file history, usage, and metadata. In Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Billy Mok.2014 just now, I had these seven images only partialy delete:

In order to get them to fully delete, I have to restore them and then delete them by hand using the little garbage can below the DR tag on each separate image. I've gotten no error messages when this happens. The only way I spot the ones that haven't deleted fully is that they still have [keep] [del] links next to them when I've refreshed my browser, which I'm doing very frequently because of this bug and the API errors I reported above, which are also still happening, though not as bad as a couple days ago. I'm noy a tech guy, so I don't know how to deal with these issues, but they certainly make closing daily DRs significantly more difficult and time consuming. Any help will be greatly appreciated. INeverCry 00:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

This is an old issue, purging the file pages helps. --Didym (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I've temp-restored the remaining 3 files and re-deleted them. Problem solved, underlying issue remains. --Túrelio (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for a speedy keep

Hello. Could you please close this rather frivolous deletion request ? The reason given is that the person in the picture does not like it. First, this cannot be verified, second it was taken during a public and professional appearance and the person was obviously not hiding from the photographers, hence it is perfectly legal under French law. It's a bit similar to this other request... Please take note that there was an edit war, apparently by the same account, on the French wikipedia page : so I have changed the photo so the offending picture will not appear anymor there, and I will leave it at that. Thanks. JJ Georges (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  Done Speedy kept. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. JJ Georges (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker (talk · contribs) hasn't made any edits to Commons since 7 June. I checked the two largest Wikipedias, and CommonsDelinker hasn't made any edits there either since 7 June. User:CommonsDelinker/commands is full of unprocessed changes, and there are presumably plenty of deleted files which haven't been removed from pages. What is going on? --Stefan4 (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Restarted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I wasn't sure where to report this problem. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for reporting. Delinker is running as continuous job (= automatically restart, etc.) on grid, therefore it shouldn't be down too often :-). --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Another thing: I currently seem to be (almost) the only admin active here. This is fine, but I will be travelling for some periods in Summer and in September, and may have no access to Commons for several days. I would appreciate if it is clear that I did not work on the list for 24h for someone else to work on the backlog.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Houses by association

I would like to remind that Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 52#Any Czech-speaking administrator? (related to Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/09/Category:Houses by association) was archived without solving the problem properly. The affected author of the problematic CfD decision is trying to discuss the problem underhandly at the user page of the last discussed admin istead of revoking his problematic decision and reopening the affected CfD properly and continuing the discussion there. --ŠJů (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Huge Epilepsy/Seizure Risk on "horror" search results page

EPILEPSY AND SEIZURE WARNING: the following search results have high frequency flashing red, this is super dangerous for people with diagnosed and undiagnosed photosensitive epilepsy. It could cause a seziure and serious injury.

You can see them on the search page for "horror" (Make sure you're not in a position where a seizure could damage you if you fell, anyone can get them from this kind of imagery as people go undiagnosed with epilepsy) ->

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Horror

[EVEN STRONGER WARNING, THE IMAGES ARE EVEN LARGER HERE AND POTENTIALLY VERY DANGEROUS]. :Here are links to the offending images

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:011000010111011001100001_(AVA)_file_113_-_%22I_found_you%22.gif https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:011000010111011001100001_(AVA)_file_12_-_%22Here_I_come%22.gif https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:011000010111011001100001_(AVA)_file_200_-_%22Stop_it.%22.gif https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:011000010111011001100001_(AVA)_file_32_-_%22Come_out_come_out_wherever_you_are%22.gif https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:011000010111011001100001_(AVA)_file_401_-_%22Heeheehee...%22.gif

My brain got migraines seeing them only briefly, please remove them, they are extremely dangerous.

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.79.185 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 18 June 2015‎ (UTC)

Since there's no telling what you might stumble across on Commons or indeed the Internet in general, it would probably be a good idea for people with epilepsy to take measures like disabling animated GIFs.
Since Commons isn't censored, we probably wouldn't delete educationally useful content just because it contains flickering graphics. However, these files don't seem to be useful for any educational purpose, so I've nominated them for deletion. LX (talk, contribs) 15:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

User's CSS Deletion request

I don't know where to put this request but can a sysop plesae delete this spam in user css file? He already global locked by Stewards.Thanks--Grind24 (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Deleted file check vs. local wiki

Hi there! Can someone check to see if deleted file File:Street sweeper.JPG is the same as en:File:Street sweeper.JPG? I'm not seeing any copyright problems with the one at enwiki, but I didn't want to move it over if it's already been rejected here. —Darkwind (talk) 08:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Darkwind: Not even remotely similar, the deleted image was a photo of a statue in St. Petersburg. Revent (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Undelete old files?

Hi, I don't really know where to turn, but I found this old deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Dardel-selfportrait.jpg. These four images are today in the public domain, maybe they could be restored? Best, CFCF (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

No one placed them into Category:Undelete in 2013... And believe me, those are not the only ones, sadly. --McZusatz (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  Done, I restored the files, but sadly have no time now to clean them up properly.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The one I undeleted was in fact already here, so it is a duplicate. Deleted again. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of the others.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

please help

Can somebody please stop [[25]] from "working on categories of japanese photographers? The user destroys for example the integrity of a photo album by deleting its category and he obviously has no clue, sorry to say that, because he is removing photographer categories from pictures, that obviously where made by the photographer (reading Terry Bennetts books first would help a lot). Sorry, but I hate, that there is no possibility to trace back all what the user has deleted and it was done without discussion first! (I am sorry, that I am pissed, but I spent hours in this project and it is the second time something like this happened). Catfisheye (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Deleted file check

Hi. Hoping an admin could check File:Mardan Palace.jpg vs en:File:Mardan Palace.jpg. The link in the deletion request is dead and the wayback machine didn't seem to archive that image. Thanks, Storkk (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

  Done Same image as on Commons. Yann (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Yann! Storkk (talk) 10:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I helped write a patch for CommonsMetadata that parses for CSS classes prefixed with "restriction-". This functionality will be used in MediaViewer (see phab:T77717 and phab:T102693) to display little warning boxes alerting potential media re-users to possible legal issues. A few of the templates in question (see Commons_talk:Machine-readable_data#Non-copyright_restrictions) are protected for sysop only, so could an admin help add classes to those templates? All of the templates and classes are documented at Commons:Machine-readable_data#Machine_readable_data_set_by_non-copyright_restriction_templates Thanks! Sn1per (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Classes that need to be added

Template Class
{{Nazi symbol}} restriction-nazi
{{Insignia}} restriction-insignia
{{2257}} restriction-2257
{{Personality rights}} restriction-personality
  Done Thanks for your work on this! Jean-Fred (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Possible problem with a users edits

I don't believe this is intentional vandalism but I noticed today that Nyttend‎ made a number of edits that I think require review by someone with more experience.

  1. here and here he removed a number of categories claiming they were not on ENWP. I realize that we do get a lot of categories from ENWP but IMO it is not a requirement that the ENWP article match. Not the least of which because commons is used by all the Wiki's not just ENWP but also because we have a lot they do not have.
  2. I also noticed the user removed the category Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard as can be seen in his contributions here.

I don't want to seem like I am running straight to the admins but given our history on ENWP this user would undoubtedly just revert or ignore anything I said so I felt this was a better venue than the village pump. I will let you take action if you feel its appropriate. I'll post a note on the users talk page about this discussion momentarily in case they have echo turned off. Reguyla (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

You already tried to talk with him? If not, that would be a good first step. Natuur12 (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
No. I left a note about this discussion on their user page and that is as much interaction as I want to have with them. To put it as kindly as I can we have history on ENWP and I would prefer not interacting with them but I don't think the edits he is making are beneficial so I wanted to bring them up. Besides, based on our history I do not believe that user would listen to me anyway so it would really just be a waste of time. If you feel like the edits are beneficial or improve the pages in question then I am fine with that decision and I won't pursue the matter any further. Reguyla (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Category:Adrian Cronauer and Category:James McKay were both subcategories of a bunch of Pennsylvania county categories (Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington, Westmoreland), but neither en:Adrian Cronauer nor en:James McKay (industrialist) says anything about any of those places; both articles mention their subjects as having lived in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, but nothing else in the state gets talked about. I removed the categories because, judging by the articles, the men had nothing to do with those counties. Is there some good reason for including them? Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
You might be right on those 2. After looking at them myself I don't know why all those county categories were on there. I might go and look at who added them and see if others are affected as well. That still doesn't explain why you removed Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard from a bunch of files like this one though. Although maybe ther is a good reason for that as well. Reguyla (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
My 2 cents: in my opinion the category related to a person should never be the daughter of a category related to a place except for:
Thank you, I think we have solved the questions about the counties and I agree that having all those listed wasn't necessary or useful. I'm still a little concerned about the apparent removal of the Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard from a bunch of files but I concede there may be a valid reason. Reguyla (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

please delete highly visible picture which is a copyright violation

Please delete the highly visible autoprotected picture File:James-horner.jpg. The picture is taken by Kevin Winter/Getty Images, it's not Creative Commons as stated on the picture. It's a clear copyright violation.--CennoxX (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

DR created. Uploaded 2 years ago, wildly used, hence not a speedy. Yann (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Possibly Unfree Image

Can someone look at File:IBS FATEHGARH.png? It was uploaded by User:IBS FATEHGARH, a sockpuppet of the indef-block account User:IBS FATEHGARH AND KHANNA over on the en.wikipedia and listed as being free use, but unto my experience with these kind of image that is rarely if ever the case. Also, you may want to double check that these two accounts don't simultaneously exist on the commons as well, if they do then a checkuser here may be in order. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

  Done Yann (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone mark (pass or fail) this image? I don't know if it is a copyrightable 3D art work or not. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

  Done Copyrighted 3D art. Taivo (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Switching between pages

I would like to change the name of this file for the this file, and vice versa. The Turtle Ninja (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@The Turtle Ninja: First time I do history merging/splitting, I hope I did it right, can you check if the filenames are correct? Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Marking Commons:Username policy as a policy

Please see Commons talk:Username policy#Making official for a RFC on making the proposed username policy official. Thank you, Tiptoety talk 22:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

On this low resolution image, the uploader uploads low resolution images. Where does Commons state that they want High resolution images of a freely licensed image? The uploader rejects this policy and I can't find the page requesting high resolution images. Does anyone know? This happened on an other page too. Or maybe some can tell the uploader about Common's policies here on his talkpage.

I would like to remind that Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 52#Any Czech-speaking administrator? (related to Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/09/Category:Houses by association) was archived without solving the problem properly. The affected author of the problematic CfD decision tried to discuss the problem underhandly at the user page of the last discussed admin istead of revoking his problematic decision and reopening the affected CfD properly and continuing the discussion there. --ŠJů (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This image is the uploader's only upload on Commons. If you think it is the flickr account owner's work, please feel free to pass it. If not, please consider filing a DR or a speedy delete. The uploader has one copyvio notice on his talkpage apparently on the same subject. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, no, the image (and crops from it) has been available on the internet at higher resolution since at least 2012 (see http://www.informilo.com/2012/06/can-russia-s-yandex-bring-freedom-of-choice-to-search/ among others ). Speedied. Revent (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

HotCat edit request

Hi all. Could someone have a look at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-HotCat.js#Add rawcontinue URL parameter? I've made an edit request there, but the edit request template is not showing up as there are too many expensive parser function calls on the page. Also, it's quite important that this happens before 1 July, as that's when HotCat will break if no-one fixes it. Thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 09:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
There is the project page: Commons:User scripts/Default continuation --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Indian navy images

Hello fellow admins! It has been brought to my notice by User:SpacemanSpiff that the images uploaded from the Indian Navy website and which uses the template Template:Indian navy do not go through the normal procedure of manual/bot review to check the claim. This is quite unusual and we need to mend it, even if that means checking some 2k+ images. Also, now that I surfed through most of these images, the "source" mentioned in our descriptions is just the homepage link of Indian Navy. I would request User:Jcb, because he created the template and probably has seen the OTRS too, to provide more clarity on the actual OTRS we have received. The Indian Navy website hosts many images and all can not have been possibly created by them to release under the license. The image which triggered the doubts is File:1971 Instrument of Surrender.jpg, the 1971 image.
I will elaborate the action plan after a while which would be less mess for checking 2k+ images. Till then I would like views of other Admins and OTRS members. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The template says: This work is created by the Indian Navy and it is present at http://indiannavy.nic.in/. If an uploader does not provide a link to the file on that website, you can just remove the template and add {no source}. If there is serious doubt about the authorship, you can just start the DR. The template clearly states what the permission is, if the permission doesn't apply to that file then the template can be removed. It's our longstanding practice to have this kind of templates. Jcb (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes! We can add a "no source" tag to the file or take it to DR or such... But these files aren't getting reviewed at all. I am hence going to add a review process for these files. At start the unreviewed files would be plenty, but I hope we all, admins and reviewers together, can bring down the number. I suppose this is the right longstanding practice we have had. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I just want to confirm that the OTRS ticket then covers all images from indiannavy.nic.in then. The reason I ask is that governmental works are explicitly protected by law for sixty years and it seems odd for them to send a blanket ticket like this given that. —SpacemanSpiff 03:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Help

Hi. I am Bojana from Republic of Srpska. I am working with wiki users from this part of world in organizing photography competition Commons:Trace of Soul 2015. We wanted to create page Campaign:tos-rs for uploading files but we do not have access for this namespace. Can someone of you create it for us? I will need it today.--Bojana Wiki PG (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to crate the campaign page. Can you please provide the json data. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The images File:Gayari Camp as of 12 Oct 2011.jpg and File:Gayari Camp Area as of 14 June 2014.jpg are copyright violations by user TrimWire who declared it as "own work", moreover user is involved in edit war on Wikipedia page 2012 Siachen Glacier avalanche to add these images. Thank you.--Human3015 (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  deleted by Didym. --Túrelio (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Please delete

User:Draptum has uploaded lot of pictures with unknown licence, please delete--Motopark (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Upload wizard: License allocation error

Hello, if you upload with the upload wizard images and the default choice cc-by-sa 3.0 takes is assigned to pictures cc-by-sa 4.0, this can not be correct. And what to do with the images, which a false license has been assigned? --Jean11 (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Jean11, the Upload Wizard is no longer being maintained by its developers so this problem is unlikely to be fixed soon. There is nothing wrong with adding the 3.0 license and then changing it to 4.0 as soon as the upload is done. Alternatively I would recommend using the older, slower but more reliable Commons:Upload, and adding the license in the Permission line rather than the Licensing section. Green Giant (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
"this problem is unlikely to be fixed soon. There is nothing wrong with adding the 3.0 license and then changing it to 4.0" that contradicts itself. And we need a policy where the tags should be. Permission is for permission tags not for licence tags. --Jean11 (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hallo @Jean11: Bei welchem Upload ist das passiert (Dateiname oder besser Link)? Hast Du cc-by-sa 3.0 im Assistenten ausgewählt oder einfach unter der Standardlizenz hochgeladen? Welche System-Sprache ist in Deinen Einstellungen auf Wikimedia Commons ausgewählt? Welche Einstellungen sind bezüglich des Assistenten zum Hochladen von Dateien in Deinen Einstellungen festgelegt? -- Rillke(q?) 15:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Rillke, bei File:WillyWobst Hinterhermsdorf Stein (2).jpg, File:Gedenkstein 100. Geburtstag Seesen-Dr. Willy Wobst.jpg, kenn die Einstellungen von Mehltaube nicht, kann auf Wunsch nachfragen. Mehltaube hatte per Klick auf "Eine andere Lizenz verwenden." sich die anderen Lizenzen angesehn, ist aber bei dere empfohlenen Lizenz (Creative Commons „Namensnennung – Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0“) geblieben. Weiß von einem Upload von einem anderen Benutzer, bei dem das auch passiert ist. --Jean11 (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jean11: Ich habe verschiedene Einstellungen probiert und kann das Problem nicht nachvollziehen und bitte daher um die Einstellungen. Außerdem ist es sehr umständlich, dass das über dich und mich als Mittelsmänner läuft. So schlagen wir uns wieder Zeit um die Ohren. phabricator: ist die Entität, zu der Probleme mit dem Assistenten berichtet werden sollten. Am bestem mit Screenshot des Assistenten und des Ergebnisses. -- Rillke(q?) 15:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Manche commons user kennen noch nicht mal diese Seite, und kommen mit phabricator nicht zurecht, hätte ich es nicht gemeldet (bei den mir bekannten Fällen) hätt es wahrscheinlich niemand gemeldet. Habe Mehltaube angeschrieben, und geschrieben, das sie ihre Einstellungen am Besten selber meldet. --Jean11 (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Rillke, übrigens ich kann es schon nachvollziehen. Sprache ist deutsch, Assistenten Einstellungen sind: Eigenes Werk – Creative Commons „Namensnennung – Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0“ (Text der Lizenz). --Jean11 (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jean11: Hast du die Datei auch veröffentlicht und geschaut, ob tatsächlich cc-by-sa 3.0 oder 4.0 gesetzt wird? -- Rillke(q?) 21:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Rillke, Mehltaube hat wahrscheinlich 3.0 anstatt 4.0 gelesen, also kein Fehler beim Hochladeassistent, danke. Gruß --Jean11 (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Alternate user accounts

It happens now and then that users generate a second account which doesn't seem to be intending any sockpuppetry. Example:

How is to deal therewith? --Achim (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It is allowed on Commons, so long as there is no intent to mislead. Best to ignore it. -- (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your info. --Achim (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Can someone mark this image? It should be Pd-Art if the claim is correct. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Set PD-Art|PD-old-70 and did some lookup: made a DR because it doesn't seem to be a colorized photograph as said but a painting. So   Done here, follow up the DR. --Achim (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Jim absent & offline til August

Just for the record: Per the last message on his User talk:Jameslwoodward, Jim will be offline due to vacation through the first week in August. --Túrelio (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Mass music uploads

I encountered a lot of music uploads while patrolling User:OgreBot/Notable uploads. Actually this is second wave. Previous one was ~ half of year before. Justification that WMF traffic is free in Angola, so some people decided to use Commons as file hosting regardless of copyright status of files.

I think that blocks are justified after 2-3 repetitive deletion requests like Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Geraldo Suicida.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I think speedydeleting and blocking is okay. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: Created Commons:Database reports/Video and audio uploads for easy patrolling. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I think will be good idea to make it similar to User:OgreBot/Notable uploads: breaking by the day, update functionality, sorting by user and displaying template status (deletion request, OTRS, no permission, etc). --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Not sure. That would mean rewriting the complete script. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Large influx of what look like bot-created accounts

I've noticed throughout the day a large number of what look to be bot-created accounts with generalized pattern names. None of these accounts seem to have login.wiki registration (I've checked about 20 of them) and no edits that I've seen. I'm not sure what this is, or if it's something bad, but the account creations are continuing. I've listed most of the ones created so far here: User:INeverCry/Bot created accounts?. @Krd: @Tiptoety: @Trijnstel: @Billinghurst: (Trijnstel and Andrew - have you seen this anywhere else?) INeverCry 02:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This accounts are likely created using the api (therefore no loginwiki account). I have seen such accounts x-wiki. Maybe it is worth to report this on phabricator. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
From the names, they are most probably spambot accounts. Yann (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
It would be nice if some mechanism could be used to shut all of them down once the first one starts spamming. It's good to have a list, though. BD2412 T 23:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I have seen mass spambot creations, though not or a while, especially as there is usually an intervention. Stewards cannot do anything and this matter belongs with your local checkusers, and they have been pinged on this matter in another forum, though I have heard nothing in response.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Please delete advertising image

Please can you delete [[File:Sumra Admission.gif]]? The user who created it was blocked from English Wikipedia or spamming, see [26], and now another user, User:Kiswa~commonswiki, is spamming it on English Wikipedia pages again, see [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. This image has 0 encyclopedic value. Apologies if this request was malformed/in the wrong place, I only have experience in using English Wikipedia, this is one of my first posts to Wikimedia Commons. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC) If you need to contact me, best place might be on English Wiki. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done Files deleted and accounts blocked. Thibaut120094 (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Commons admins and their awareness of the sister communities

I am again seeing number of administrators at Commons acting in a means that is contrary to the interests of our sister wikis. This week I have seen images that have been held for five + years deleted when widely used by a sister wiki. No deletion discussion, no consideration for the wiki ... bang. Now the image deletion needs to be appealed and then the repair work has to be done at the wiki. I have also seen a discussion taking place about the generation of gif files to png files by a bot, and the last time that the bot ran it also deleted these gif images and replaced them with png. What gives us the right to act in such a way? These are files in use, they have been uploaded by these wikis here for their purposes. That is meant to be the function of this wiki.

It is not our role to think that we can just take actions independent of the sisters. It is not our role to think that we know better. We have a special role here at the centre of the files and images that the user have uploaded. Ye, we need to make sure that the files are within our scope. It is not our role to think we know better than the sister wikis on what they want, without inviting them into our conversations. If we wish to broaden our scope, or to put forward a better/brighter/improved vision, then we can, and this is done by having a discussion and inviting the wikis to participate directly to each of their forums, to take the time and effort to widely consult. It takes time, it takes patience, and effort, and if we want to make changes it is contingent on us making that effort.

At the moment I see too much disregard for the sisters by numbers of people who just put on a Commons hat, and only a Commons hat. To me that is the wrong approach, we all should wear a Wikimedia hat that allows us to see outside of our own little fenced area. Actions here have global effects and a full awareness of the consequences of our actions should always be considered.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

A few days ago an image, File:Bankim chandra chatterjee.jpg was deleted, which was being used in multiple wikis, including at multiple places in English Wikisource. s:Author:Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay died in 1894, how his image could be non-PD, I could not understand. Whatever website hosts it under whatever copyright claim, obviously the image was taken in or before 1894. Hrishikes (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, without names or links to diffs, billinghurst there isn't a lot we can do to understand your complaint and pointed jibes. Copyright violations will be deleted regardless of number of uses or duration on the project. It would be of great benefit not to cast aspersions without details, that's no more helpful for the sister Wikicommons than the alleged behaviors about which you are complaining. Hrishikes the image in question was removed as a copyright violation. It doesn't matter how many of the wikis are using an image, copyvios are removed when found. The image was originally uploaded as own work, subsequent edits to source (http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030302/spectrum/bankim%20chandra%20chatterjee.jpg) provided no greater clarity to the license status of this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
This image is quite old. this painting kept at the museum established at the author's house was made from this image. Hrishikes (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Just because the person died in 1894 doesn't mean that's when the painting was made nor when the picture was taken. The picture is clearly done on a relatively new camera with good resolution. So it has to be done fairly recently. The data of the image says 2008 which seems to match my theory. That doesn't mean it is or isn't copywritten, but it does give us a good indication that we should be sure that it isn't before we post it. Reguyla (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Reguyla, that's a picture of a picture, not a painting. So Hrishikes is right that it is obviously in the public domain. Now it would have helped if information provided was right... Yann (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Umm, it sure looks like a painting to me. So even if it is a picture of a picture of a painting, its still a painting as the source of the picture. The answer to all of this may very well be that the picture is allowed and that the painting was made in 1908 and in the public domain. I admit I don't know and maybe we should have discussed the deletion first, but we shouldn't have to open a discussion on every image that's used on every wiki that links here when dealing with Copyright issues just because someone might complain. Wikipedia doesn't do that with unsourced BLP's, they get deleted all the time and we shouldn't be the exception because its "just" a picture of a picture of a picture of a painting. Reguyla (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Reguyla, as I said above, this is NOT a painting, just an old picture. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The picture is still of a painting and we still don't know if either has a copywrite do we? Reguyla (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Did you look at it? Did you read what I wrote? BTW I uploaded a bigger version. Don't forget that pictures from India are in the public domain 50 years after creation, so this is in the public domain since at least 1944. Yann (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Nevermind what I said, I see the problem now, we were both talking about different images. Your right that image does seem to be fine but I am not a copyright expert so I'll let you all hash out the details on that one. Reguyla (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Guys, using the word "picture" (or "image") in contrast to "painting" is very unclear. You need to use the word "photo" (or "photograph") here. -- Tuválkin 05:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
billinghurst I haven't seen the problem you mention and I know that we have frequently not agreed on some issues but I agree this situation needs review. Could you provide a couple examples?
With that said, I for one know that the other "sister wiki's" don't come here consulting commons when they make changes or decisions so I don't agree that this community need necessarily cater to them. This community works to maintain the images just as Wikisource maintains source information, Wikidata maintains data elements etc. One good example is on Wikidata every wiki has a little box but commons falls under the "Other Wiki's category like we don't even fall under Wikimedia. That's just one example. So I agree that there should be some collusion with the sister wiki's but at the end of the day this community also has some autonomy and we need not cater to a community just because "its their file and they are just storing it here". Reguyla (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata must be a masochist community, another wiki whose sitelinks can only be found in the "other wikis" section is their own project.    FDMS  4    15:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
That is nonsensical Reguyla. These individual local wikis are managing local issues, nothing that they do affects Commons. There are three global wikis Commons, Meta, and Wikidata, and where they/we are making decisions wikimedia-wide they need to discuss. Meta has done so for steward elections and the one policy push for advanced rights holders, and they have to consider xwiki when they apply components for global filters, blacklists, etc. Wikidata does it regularly through contacting and involving communities in their discussions, while not perfect they have done a brilliant job.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure whats up with the attitude towards me but I agreed with you on several aspects of what you say so I'm not sure why you are saying I am being nonsensical without saying the same of yourself. I just don't like how commons is treated as "Other wiki" on Wikidata when the whole reason this project is the way it is, is a result of the special nature of it so it can be used by all wikis. Its also worth noting that there are more than 3 "global wiki's" because the incubator where projects are sent to die is a global wiki and so is Wikitech, they just aren't as well known or used. You also cannot tell me that some decisions on projects like Wikidata and ENWP don't affect Commons because I know better. Sure they are rare. Remember I have been around almost as long as you have, I just never became an admin. Reguyla (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  Comment I just now saw this discussion.. I haven't been here much the last few days, largely due to a sprained ankle keeping me mostly horizontal. I was the one who deleted File:Bankim chandra chatterjee.jpg, and I agree that my doing so as I did was an error (I have since undeleted it, and restored all of it's usage). I would like to explain why I did so, however. Several images by that user were marked as copyvios, with watermarks showing they were from www.historyofbengal.com ... they had been uploaded as 'own work' in 2010. Checking, they had been on the source website years prior to the upload. The editor's history showed close to a dozen other files that had been deleted as copyvios from the same website, with links given, years ago, also uploaded as 'own work' in 2010 (though prior to the ones that were still around). I made the, apparently mistaken, presumption that the rest of the persons uploads were the same... copyrighted 'own work' uploads from the internet, and nuked them on that basis. Since this was pointed out to me, I've gone back and looked at them all again, and undeleted this and two others... one was a 'own work' upload that was a watermarked PD-Art (which I fixed the data on after undeleting it) and one is probably IMO an 'own work' copyvio as well, but I can't prove it due to the website it tracks back to being broken (with a redirect loop).
I'm not trying to make excuses, just explain 'why' I took the action I did at the time. I admittedly ended up making a mistake, which I fixed as soon as I became aware of it, and for which I apologize. I don't think I was wrong in 'assuming' the uploader was simply grabbing images from the net and calling them 'own work', I just should not have assumed they were all actually problematic because of that. This is the only time yet that I have done so, and I don't do it again. Revent (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I purposefully did not mention any particularly case as I was addressing each matter separately. Doing blame sucks, and this is not about blame, this is about addressing a cultural issue that needs all Commons admins to maintain a WMF-wiki wide awareness of the effect of their decisions, actions and inactions. For each admin to share the responsibility for actions of other admins, for us maintaining that broad focus, and where we see limited local-thinking that is challenged. Each of us needs to have the broader wikimedia hat on our head when making decisions, and when taking actions. Also the actions that we see another do that does not fit within the ideal should be be tested and challenged, not ignored as someone else's problem, so our own inaction also matters.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments although I think you need to tell that to the WMF and to the folks at ENWP more than here. Both groups are much more problematic than here. Thanks Revent for the explanation, it makes complete sense. Reguyla (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
On 19th of April 2015 I deleted speedily file:Vince Lombardi Trophy.png, which was used in different projects almost 1000 times. The prize is copyrighted and NFL enforces strictly its copyright. Was it wrong? How to act in such situations next time? Taivo (talk) 08:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that was incorrect, personally. Revent (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Revent, after looking at the source site, which contained a lot of conflicting information. 1) Licensed under CC-BY; 2) Site carries disclaimer: "Unless stated otherwise, the graphical resources uploaded to this site are NOT for commercial use. To use any resource from this site for commercial purposes, please contact the author." 3) Though overall view on source-site suggested that uploader is the true author, the additional information provided in the SD-tag was clearly more convincing. Overall, when facing this information, I would also have deleted this image.
IMO, the only possible point of procedural improvement is: as this was not a blatant copyvio, upload had been >1 year ago and the file was heavily in use, a regular (slow) DR might have been more appropriate to allow for more discussion and eventually to open a local fair-use process. --Túrelio (talk) 07:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I would agree, except that I think the question of 'obviousness' might be influenced by that the copyright in the Vince Lombardi trophy was the subject of a reasonably well-publicized federal lawsuit a few years ago. See [33] for the actual registration. (FYI, the makers of knockoff 'fantasy football' trophies lost, badly) Revent (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
By blatant I meant an image uploaded as "own work" when it is clearly not, such the typical actress-shot from Getty Images. The trophy-case might be known to people in the U.S.; I had never read of it previously. --Túrelio (talk) 08:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Túrelio: Indeed, the point holds in general, this was just a unique example, maybe not the best to illustrate the point. Revent (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • There should be a distinction between deleting unused media and deleting media in use somewhere. It may be the case that the deletion will go unnoticed by anyone on the project where it is being used, but will leave a gaping hole on the page where it was located that could easily be filled if someone was made aware of the situation. I would propose creating a bot to post a weekly or monthly report to the village pump or equivalent page for each project affected, indicating what pages on that project contain links to images that were deleted in the preceding report period. Furthermore, if a specific image is in use on dozens of pages or more, perhaps the better course of action would be to first try to find a non-copyvio version and upload that over the copyvio version, and rev-del the copyvio instances from the page history. BD2412 T 02:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Uploading a substantially different image on top of the original is not appropriate... even if the image is a copyvio, doing so breaks external reusage of the image 'transparently' (I am referring to cases where external websites embed images hosted on Commons, specifically). Instead, if a replacement free image is possible it should be uploaded under a new filename, the usages moved over if appropriate, and the original deleted. At the same time, it's not really something that should be done 'automatically', in my opinion... such a change is just as likely to break local uses depending on the context... among other things, it could easily result in an image caption (and, possibly, an attribution in the caption) that does not correctly describe the replacement. Also, the deleted image might be usable on the local projects as 'fair use'.
It is far better IMO that if an image is deleted for whatever reason, that it should be done in a way that triggers a local edit to the pages where the image is used, so that page watchers are made aware of the change. Doing it 'transparently' seems to me more likely to create cross-wiki drama and complaints. Revent (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@BD2412: This is actually a good proposal to begin with besides the issues raised by Revent. Let me just add that every deletion request could add a number in it's header which counts the global usage. Based on that and the reason for deletion, the relevant communities could be notified (they way how to do this is not immediately clear to me, yet) or the file may be replaced by a similar one... --McZusatz (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't often find my self agreeing with BD2412 these days but I agree with that proposal and I also share Revents concerns. Having a bot notify the projects of deleted commons images would be useful and helpful but it will certainly create drama, especially on ENWP where drama flourishes already. If we do setup a bot we should try to do it in such a way that it minimizes the drama that would likely happen and distract us from more important things like improving the project. Reguyla (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I have long supported the idea of deletion notifications on the talk pages of articles that use Commons media; a courtesy action that would improve relations between wikis irrespective of any potential drama. McZusatz, I'm not a coder but could this task be done by modifying the QuickDelete script so that when a file is nominated for deletion using the QuickDelete link, the user account would be used to leave a note on the talk pages of affected articles in the same way it acts when a file is moved? Any manual nominations could then be picked up by a bot at the end of the day? There is a lot that could be done at the Commons end to improve the whole deletion process and a courtesy note would be a good way to start. Green Giant (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The reason that I would prefer a project notification (at the local Village Pump, for example) over a page notification at a specific talk page is that on certain projects, like Wikisource and Wiktionary, many pages are unlikely to be watched by any active editor at all. Another alternative to uploading a copyvio free image over an existing image would be to automate the replacement of images on other projects with a reasonable substitute. I recognize that for a different enough image a caption might become mismatched, but a caption that is wrong for the image it is under is better than a caption under a red link where an image used to be. Furthermore, if the issue is solely something like an inability to confirm who took a photograph of a public domain artwork, then substituting a roughly identical photograph with known provenance should not upset any captions. BD2412 T 14:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I think its reasonable enough to have the notification at Wikisource or Wiktionary Village Pumps but we have to be realistic about the volume of notifications this would involve; this month alone has seen almost 5,000 files nominated for deletion. Obviously they aren't all being used on other wikis but potentially there would have been a lot of notes left on talk pages or village pumps. Thus it should not involve creating a new section for every DR; rather it would be better to have a single section at the top of each VP or even perhaps a VP subpage to which the script/bot could add a link for each DR, together with a list of affected pages in that wiki? On second thoughts if we do decide on village pumps, I think a subpage would be better than the main village pump. Green Giant (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 
This image is under review.

I am understanding that only the wikis where the image is being used at the time of nomination will be notified by some way. This does not solve the possible problem that once the image is put up for DR and later if it was being put to use on Wiki. I know that this case started with images which have been on Commons for a long time but are being deleted now. But let's not ignore such cases too where the images are being put to use after DR has started; the lag can be anything from 1 sec to 7 days or so. Also, as pointed out, the log of 5k or something images would be difficult to handle and also create a lot of e-waste.
Instead, is it possible for all Wikis to somehow include a small line "This image is under review" just below wherever it is used. Individual wikis can use different sentences in their respective languages. Or even better would be simply to add an exclamation sign or such to highlight. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Several years ago there was a Bot leaving DR warning notes on articles talk pages (probably other namespaces too) using affected images but that stopped some years ago. Posting at VP is the wrong place as it would be flooded with information.--Denniss (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @User:Denniss, one-size-fits-all thinking is not helpful where the communities (and their use of images) differ. Wikipedia uses tons of images and pages tend to be well-watched. Wiktionary and Wikisource projects have comparatively few images, but may have many more pages that are not well-watched. An alert at the Wiktionary VP regarding deletion of images used on that project would not flood the page with information. BD2412 T 15:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree if we do this we need to allow it to be used dynamically, the problem is how to do that. The only way I can see this really working is by using the metadata at Wikidata, but again I'm not sure how to make that work flexibly for the projects because a lot of commons content is not linked on Wikidata, partly IMO because commons is considered an "Other Wiki". The more I read about this problem the more I think this "problem" may not be a "problem" for the commons community. I think it may be better for the communities to build a bot to notify them the way they want to be notified if that is what they want. Reguyla (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
      +1. By the way, I created the report User:Fæ/Wikinews DRs due to similar issues of the Wikinews community not being aware enough of DRs on Commons. If anyone wants to create more reports like this, the SQL is at the bottom of the report, and it is refreshed once a day using a small Python script on labs. Not too complex for any volunteer bot writer. -- (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
      I would think that it is entirely appropriate for us to 1) put to a discussion any file that is used by a community and has been held for an extended period of time (>> six months, or a year?), or is going to cause issues with pre-emptive deletion, eg. transcribed djvu, rather than being abruptly deleted; 2) For us to have a bot that puts a templated/standard message onto a designated page (standard page unless communities identify a different page) notifying that community of a proposed deletion. Any community is then able to raise a discussion point, or a request to transfer the file to their wiki where it is within scope (including copyright) to hold the file. I would also argue that there for some communities (eg. Wikisources that hold djvu files within the mw:Extension:ProofreadPage) that required time to prepare or the deletion of a file, and such notice could be added to any deletion discussion by the community in question. I would propose that such a bot is hosted on ToolLabs with multiple owners so it has a better perpetual life than previous versions that ran with a singular owner at toolserver.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
      Wouldn't this just be like the stuff for deletion venues? Something like this would need to be done here, in order to keep the discussion centralized, otherwise someone here would need to watch all the wiki's and even just watching the big ones like ENWP would be a full time job. Reguyla (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
      I think we have two discussions going on at once here: Should communities be notified when deletion of an image in use is being discussed? Should communities be notified when an image in use has in fact been deleted, particularly if the page(s) containing the image are likely to be unwatched. My concern is that for certain communities with a low volume of image usage, the community be notified if an image used there is deleted. I believe other editors are concerned about the discussion taking place before this deletion, and I don't dismiss the importance of that issue. BD2412 T 04:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
On a related issue, there is still a bug in the wiki-software such that it is NOT always possible to check use of files on other wikis. I work on the English Wiktionary, where pronunciation files are used all the time, and those audio files are housed here at Commons. Wiktionary is case sensitive, and when that change was implemented some years ago, the check for audio file links WAS ALSO MADE CASE SENSITIVE, even though it should not have been. The result is that, most of the time, the capitalization of the filename on Commons will not match the capitalization of the file name on Wiktionary, and the software will not show the use. So there are files on Commons that have usage on the Wiktionaries where the usage does not show up in the list of linked files at Commons.
Example: If you check the File usage listings for File:En-us-listen.ogg, you will not see a listing for the page wikt:listen which is its primary usage.
Can we just change all the file calls from all the Wiktionaries? No, nor should we. The usual problem is that the prefix of the filename is an ISO language code (e.g. File:En-us-listen.ogg), which will automatically be capitalized on Commons, but which should not actually be capitalized. The ISO language code for English is en, and not En or EN, and Wiktionary is case sensitive. Using multiple capitalization variants on Wiktionary creates problems.
I put in a report on bugzilla years ago about this, but it has never been addressed. In the meantime, it is not possible to check for file usage on the Wiktionaries at all. The bugzilla report was marked as identical to another (which I cannot locate) and written off as "closed", but the problem persists all these years later.
In the meantime, Commons cannot even identify all the usages of its files on sister projects, and there are multiple occasions where a file was deleted from Commons with no notification nor any bot-assisted correction on Wiktionary. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
This sounds easy enough to work around in a report similar to User:Fæ/Wikinews DRs, as the SQL can be tweaked to match the non-capitalization on Wiktionary when checking for global links (unless there is effectively a phantom link back to Commons which is absent from the table data. I find this hard to imagine, so would be worth a play around with to find out). Alternatively this specific need, if it does start getting met for other projects, would be a good reason to prioritize the bug. -- (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope that an Admin can tell if any of these user's uploads are free. I just failed one of his/her image and other images by this person are cited to be tistory or other websites but the license is unclear or uncertain. He also passed this image which he uploaded....and I don't know if this is his practice as its very late here where I am.

This uploader also uploaded these 2 images below from flickr which is clearly ARR but someone else can fail it.

  • The second ARR image said an OTRS ticket is forthcoming but that was on June 9, 2015 and the ticket is still not verified.

This separate DR created by Martin H. cites serious doubts about images uploaded by this person by a third party and I think that the precautionary principle may need to apply to all his/her images. I think they are mostly unfree except for 1-2 images that passed flickrreview. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

False information in user page and redirect

There are false information in User:The image index userpage and user User:The golden key has been redirected his user page to second one--Motopark (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done First one is deleted, second is reverted. Yann (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Rename redirects

When Fastily was an admin, they would regularly assist me in my work by deleting the leftover redirects when I renamed files, but that is no longer possible. Is there an admin that wouldn't mind if I leave a list of old redirects on their talk page once and a while requesting their deletion? Fry1989 eh? 20:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

----> INeverCry 20:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Sounds great, thank you. Fry1989 eh? 21:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Aren't file redirects supposed to be left in case something still links to them? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I check that before I have them deleted. It's usually files with only a few uses, not heavy-use images, so CommonsDelinker takes care of them anyway and if it doesn't I can do it myself. Fry1989 eh? 23:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
If INC is not available, I'm happy to help you with this as well. Green Giant (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I have for year co-operated on similar way with YLSS. You can make a subpage for that and sometimes ask me to delete all redirects on the subpage. Taivo (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I can help as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Just a note that the links only relate to other WMF projects. If the image is used on Wikia for example, or somewhere else, it doesn't show as a link. Reguyla (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Reguyla. Redirects should only be deleted if they are actually misleading of if they are clearly inappropriate for other strong reasons.--Pere prlpz (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The more I think about this, I think I am going to submit a Phabricator request to look into if its possible to see if the image is being used on a non WMF wiki or site. I don't know if that's even possible or what the second level effects might be (Spam sites, mirrors, Flickr Facebook links, etc.). There may be a technical way to at least get visibility of some like Wikia to help reduce the potential for breakage due to deleting images or redirects that may be used elsewhere. Reguyla (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I created a request in phabricator to look into giving visibility of at least some other websites usage of Commons media files. That can be seen in phabracator.

It's actually a core principle of File renaming to leave redirects from former names intact. The only exceptions are for recently created files or offensive/highly misleading/generic filenames. Sometimes there are multiple moves within a short timeframe so no need to keep intermediate redirects then. We are not responsible for usage outside of Wiki but keeping redirects intact does not cause broken usage/attribution for re-users.--Denniss (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Denniss: Interesting (runs sql search and picks 3 recent examples by 3 different admins) --
  1. File:A photograph taken by Cecil Beaton at the Women's Horticultural College at Waterperry House in Oxfordshire, 1943. DB264.jpg
  2. File:HMS Queen Elizabeth MOD 45157595.jpg
  3. File:Friedrich Heinrich Alexander von Humboldt. Lithograph by R. Wellcome V0002934.jpg
Would you say that these deletions of duplicates, without leaving redirects, were okay or should any have been left as redirects (this is verging on being a good advanced technical question for a RFA)? -- (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Not looking at the details of the specific ones, that is most likely a result of deleting them manually instead of using the 'process duplicates' tool (which leaves a redirect). Revent (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)