Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 58

< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard
Archive 58

Commons:Deletion requests/File:EU Passport Cyprus 2016.JPG

Was this DR was properly closed? It was closed by Special:Contributions/120.152.28.166 an editor who has only had an account for less then a week and who was participating directly in the discussion. It does not seem as if the nomination to delete was withdrawn by the nominator Stefan2 and that the discussion had been resolved either way. In addition, LL212W who is in favor of keeping the image seems to not only have !voted twice, but also has added their name as the "closer" of the discussion. All things considered, none of this seems appropriate at all per COM:D#Closure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

120.152.28.166 is my IP address. A browser issue is causing my account to continously log out. Hopefully this will be of clarification :) --LL212W (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
If you're having such problems more often than not, then it might be a good idea to post a note or something on User:120.152.28.166 or your user page so that other editors do not mistakenly assume the accounts are unrelated or that you are improperly using multiple accounts. Doing so, especially if you're going to participate in deletion related discussions, will help avoid any misunderstandings. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, IMO, LL212W should have stated it instead in their user page, not on the IP's user page, because the IP can be used by anyone. ★ Poké95 09:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
That is a good point Pokéfan95. @LL212W: As Pokéfan95 points out, I gave you some slightly bad advice. You should include the information on your user page, not the IP's. Anyone else editing from that same IP address will be indistiguishable from you unless they clearly say otherwise; Only you, however, will be editing under your username. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I will know next time. --LL212W (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Revert crops by User:EurovisionNim

Could someone please revert the too tight crops done by User:EurovisionNim, per this discussion (German). The user was already notified. Thanks! --Sebari (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

  •   Done unfortanutely there was no automated tool for this. At some point through, I realized some of these were his own uploads and decided not to revert the cropping of his own images. ~riley (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Eliad bensoussan

Could an administrator please help clean up the mess after Eliad bensoussan before he/she makes an even bigger mess? So far they've

—LX (talk, contribs) 11:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

  Done. --A.Savin 13:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Pilvax.jpg, File:Parchovany castle zamok kastiel.jpg

I ask that an independent administrator can proceed with this two- image. JCB because the author has been deleted other images , but these challenges the legitimacy of immediate removal . The same applies to these pictures . Or they can be removed in the same way or not it could have been the other images. I think it is nonsense for the above, that I should not initiate a meeting cancellation is clearly the offending images. It is outrageous that the administrator instead of taking the meeting complained of images , but rather threatens blocking against an editor who is entitled to nominate removed images ( strength legitimate evidence that the author's other pictures have been deleted after the same mark ) . (This is a machine translated replies). Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I declined the speedy requests, because I think these files qualify for regular DRs. I instructed this user to do so, but he decided to revert my decision and to keep doing so. User can start a regular DR. Jcb (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The author died in 1946. The works are public domain from 2017. In the meantime, illegal. Anyone who denies that the meeting cancellation to move , because the state is maintained by the offender. It is obvious infringement, the infringement terminated. And it does not need to prove it, and showed a marked , but the one who denies the evidence.

I hope that does not involve blocking that because I write here! Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Q: JCB, the images such that cancellation be discussed. I think you are not, but to comply with that procedure should be deleted immediately. We are in a logic that needs to be done to erase the meeting, who said that excess and not a required according to whom? Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

  Done DR started. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Urgent Please Reply

When i go to google maps and type in Basildon, a picture of Southend on sea pops up! that is wrong. How can we edit or correct this? Please reply as soon as possible.Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty777 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 17 May 2016‎ (UTC)

Liberty777: As far as I can tell, this is neither urgent, nor a matter requiring a Wikimedia Commons administrator, nor in any way related to Wikimedia Commons (this website). The Google Maps website has a "send feedback" link in the lower right-hand corner; I suggest you use that. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Technical deletion problem?

Trying to delete File:François-Joseph Gossac.jpeg (wrong written filename and duplicate to File:François-Joseph Gossec.jpeg) results in a very strange and sparse error message: (html source code)

<html><head></head><body>Exception encountered, of type "Wikibase\Client\Usage\UsageTrackerException" </body></html>

Any hint what do to in such a case? Seems to be a lower level technical issue. Could some other admin try to delete this file?--Wdwd (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I had that problem yesterday, same file. I thought it was probably transient, so went on my way. Perhaps it's time for a phabricator ticket. Storkk (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
ticket: T135485.

  Done.--Wdwd (talk) 09:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Change a name

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A2_%D7%96%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%9F_%D7%92%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%9F_%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9F.JPG

from "המשפיע זלמן גופין מימין" to "זלמן גופין (משמאל) ומשה נפרסטק (מימין)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meni yuzevich (talk • contribs) 18:59, 17 May 2016‎ (UTC)

@Meni yuzevich: I am willing to do this under FRC#1, but could you please remove the parentheses by rephrasing (i.e. instead of "(right)" something like "on the right" or "at right" )? I am having trouble with RTL vs LTR text, both in your request above and in the File Rename dialog. I'll do it this time, but in future, please use the {{Rename}} template. Storkk (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
OK, Change to "זלמן גופין משמאל ומשה נפרסטק מימין", tenx. Meni yuzevich (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  Done. Storkk (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Unsigned request

please do not delete my uploads because i have the copy right for those photographs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustafa desamangalam (talk • contribs) 18:17, 17 May 2016‎ (UTC)

Mustafa desamangalam: If you are indeed the author of all the photos that you've uploaded, as you claim, why do File:Sajitha r sankar.jpg and File:Anurupa Roy.jpg have metadata indicating that they were grabbed from Facebook? The first one appears to be a selfie by a female, and I'm guessing your name is Mustafa, so it seems unlikely that you created the photo. The second one was created by Mahesh Rai according to its metadata, and again, I'm guessing your name is Mustafa, so it seems unlikely that you created the photo. So it seems either you do not understand what the words "author", "own work" or "copyright holder" mean, or you are deliberately making false statements. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Only copyvios since 2014. @Mustafa desamangalam: Please read COM:L. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion request

I see that (Redacted) has been sock-tagged. The acct itself has been oversighted/hidden (Redacted). Is there any way this can be deleted? We already know Starship is an LTA sockmaster without giving him this bit of extra attention at my expense. INeverCry 19:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

  Done Accounts that have been locked and hidden should have their user page deleted if previously tagged. ~riley (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Much appreciated. INeverCry 20:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Bangladesh Facebook sockmaster

Oyfhigdgjf looks like another sock with the same video uploads as others. INeverCry 20:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@~riley: If you're still around. INeverCry 20:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping!   Done, #457 User:NahidSultan/Bangladesh Facebook Case/Accounts. Been getting errors deleting the files for over 20 minutes now.. ~riley (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

photo change

A photo taken by me appears on the page of Shehla Rashid Shora. It has a pink area at top right, a person's shirt, which I dislike. I wish to replace the photo with a version in which pink has been turned to grey. I am uthappam@gmail.com.

Mukul Dube

copyvio

some one can see the image in this category. they are probably a coppyvio. Category:Живопись bye --Chatsam (talk) 12:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Chatsam: Can you specify what image is the copyvio? Thanks, ★ Poké95 12:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
paintings dating from 2000 to 2016 --Chatsam (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Bangladesh Facebook sock

Can someone take a look at User:RKRonybd2500? 7 unsourced Bangladesh-related videos uploaded so far. INeverCry 19:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

  Done - dealt with, thanks. ~riley (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Renaming two scanned documents

Dear administrators, could you rename the two scanned documents contained in the Category:Media requiring renaming - rationale 3 as soon as you can, since they are needed to be shown to the WMF Board very soon. Thanks a lot! --B. Jankuloski (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

  Done sorry for the delay. ~riley (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

What is the purpose of MediaWiki:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js/translating.js?

Is this just template for translators? If yes, then a few messages should be updated (or added): addingAnyTemplate and addTemplateByHand should be updated and useCORSForReplace should be added. --jdx Re: 01:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

It indeed is, please make an edit request using {{Edit request}} on the talk page. ~riley (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
OK, edit request made. --jdx Re: 06:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

185.128.104.40

Hello, just wanted to alert admins to watch this IP, 185.128.104.40. I suspect that this IP is a sockpuppet of a recent LTA (and I know you know who it is). I am not requesting block yet since I have no strong evidence that this IP is used by a LTA. My only evidence is their edit on ~riley's talk page. Thanks, ★ Poké95 00:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Aside from socking concerns, this is an open proxy and should be blocked for 1 year: http://proxyservers.pro/proxy/185.128.104.40. INeverCry 00:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
@~riley: @Pokéfan95: Just FYI - if you see a strange IP that you suspect of socking, you can often find out if it's an open proxy with a quick Google search of the IP. You'll usually get several hundred results or even thousands of results, and many of the results will be spam traps, proxy lists, etc. INeverCry 00:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks INC! I will report this IP in Meta instead.   ★ Poké95 00:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Done blocked per 185.128.104.40:22 & 185.128.104.40:3128. Global action already requested. P.S. I wouldn't trust tools like that but instead use nmap, but thats just me. ~riley (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletions failing again

Hi everyone: Sorry I'm out of time for this morning and deletion failed on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kompirovicgordana several images. Could someone else please hit "D" on them for me? Perhaps also someone can figure out why the deletion system is suddenly refusing to delete images and saying "deletion failed"? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately Exception encountered, of type "Wikibase\Client\Usage\UsageTrackerException" is no longer en exception. The problem get worse and worse, more and more files cannot be deleted. Not sure if the developers gonna do something, but this is annoying. Jcb (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I have similar problems, and i agree that the problem is getting worser and worser. I reported it here in April. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Needless to say I got in trouble for going off on a sysadmin about this..   Frustrating especially when they're copyvios relating to User:NahidSultan/Bangladesh Facebook Case/Accounts. One in 5 deletions for me is effected by this. ~riley (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Back when we were getting back end errors on deletions, I used to upload a small blank white .jpg over the file that wouldn't delete, and then delete it. It worked for those, but I don't know if it would work with these. INeverCry 17:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: the files have been deleted now. Green Giant (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

We just deployed the fix and deletions work again. Sorry that the bug happened and took this long to fix. :/ Aude (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your help on this issue. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I have been able to delete most files from Category:Deletion_bug, but some still generate an error message. Jcb (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
@Aude It's happening again, please see the following files which have now refused to delete. File:DiscosoupLesAirsSolidaires.jpg & File:Conférences_les_airs_so.jpg. I do not wish to be ungrateful for all you have done to fix this, but the problem remains. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz The files appear deleted now, and I was able to delete some of the others in the deletion bug category. If there still are problems with deleting other files, please let me know and we can look into it. Aude (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I see some entries in the error logs ("Lost connection to MySQL server during query") that appear related, but have stopped. I can take a look again tomorrow to see if there still is a problem. Aude (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
It seems there are still deletion problems, but they are temporal now. So let's just tag them with {{Delbug}} and come back a few hours later to delete them. Jcb (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Efremov Andrey Grigorievich

A lot of cross-wiki copyvio and duplicates despite of DR notifications on user talk. Hausratte (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

  Done 1 week block, deleted obv copyvios. ~riley (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit Protect Request

Since this file is currently on the En Wiki Main Page, I was wondering if a passing admin could review my edit request here: File talk:19th Avenue station.JPG. The current link is pointing to a disambiguation page on the En Wiki that does not mention any articles on the relevant subject. Thanks « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

  Done ~riley (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

User uploading logos of stadiums and claiming them as their own work

See contribution history of this user; these should all be speedied as blatant copyvios. Ohnoitsjamie (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Obvious copyright violations deleted, the remaining logos can be tagged with {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademarked}} if it's believed they are below COM:TOO. ~riley (talk)
  Done I deleted other logos. Only one of them was simple in my opinion. I categorized and relicensed it. Taivo (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect message group statistics

I am not sure where report this issue so I am writing here. I have translated all translatable POTY pages into Polish and I have been surprised when I found out that there are still 79 untranslated messages (out of 652). I have dug a little and found a few examples of messages that are not visible in the standard translation interface. Some of them are translated into Polish (message #2) and some are not (messages #20 and #21). Translated or not, they cannot be edited/created because of This namespace is reserved for content page translations. The page you are trying to edit does not seem to correspond any page marked for translation. Even originals, i.e. English versions, cannot be edited. I am pretty sure that they are "dangling" (similar to dangling pointer) because they have been removed from translatable page. Two questions arise:

  1. How to fix statistics? IMO it should be possible because MediaWiki somehow knows that a message is dangling or not.
  2. Should those dangling messages be kept? They are not needed anymore.

--jdx Re: 19:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Wiki bloked my user help

My user blocked please help My IP is 186.215.0.154 Please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario2016wikimedia (talk • contribs) 17:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC+1)

Neither your username nor that IP has ever been blocked here, and neither is currently blocked on any Wikimedia wiki, as far as I can tell. Storkk (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
It is now, no open proxies. ~riley (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


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


Authorship information

Hello, could someone e-mail me the original description and authorship/license information for File:JZ foto.jpg? There's ticket:2016041110004787 regarding this file, written in Czech. I'd like to take a look on the file description before I can eventually ask for undeletion. Thank you! --Michal Bělka (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

  Done I've attached a notice to the ticket. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Template:PD-UN-doc

Template:PD-UN-doc is broken. See any file from c:Category:PD-UN-doc. Hausratte (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I've fixed the template code. De728631 (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  Thank you.. Hausratte (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


File:Georg-Friedrich-Haas perfil.gif: Copyvio?

The file is declared "own work", but the same image appears on this webpage. --Jkbw (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion request started. Thuresson (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Another Bangladesh Facebook sock

Can an admin block User:Amilfsjfd and delete the copyvio video uploads? Thank you. INeverCry 16:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

  Done by Zhuyifei1999 --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Careless DRs by Ellin beltz... once again.

Resolved - this can be closed according to the will of the one who opened this Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I already came here due this issue, the ridiculous (or at least careless) DRs from this admin.

I cannot open this thread without this infamous phrase: Copyright paranoia. Ellin Beltz are still making DRs for invalid reasons and still claiming that everyone are assumming bad faith (including Me when I transferred the Bethlehem Steel logo), invoking every time the COM:EVID, but without providing any proof of copyvio, in other words, guilty until proven innocent, and forcing to other to do the job (research properly before nominating). Another notable example of Copyright paranoia and Copyfraud is this this DR (originally a Speeyd tag) of a blatanty uncopyrightable symbol (the Taijitu/Yin Yang), that is even an Unicode character.

Straight to the point

This month, some DRs opened by her called my attention, specially this, opened with the classic Internet culls & COM:COPYVIOs., without considering the U.S. Copyright Law. The copyright status of these advertsing is discussable, but accussing someone for Copyvio is severe.

But, this DR called my attention widely (and I spent several hours to research, time that I could used to review the OTRS queue). Why? Ellin Beltz nominated 174 files at once (spent 30 seconds or less), all of them transferred to Commons by Adem20, despiste these files has been/are:

  • Already uploaded to Wikipedias several years ago, some of them the 2005!
  • Google Image Search didn't returned results for these files prior to the date of original upload for almost all of these files
  • FOP cases, one of them already nominated for deletion (another deletion process is not allowed, specially if the second DR is for invalid reasons)
  • Effectively {{Own}} works (from the original uploaders) and properly souced ones
  • Simple diagrams bellow the COM:TOO
  • And the worst, files from OpenStreetMap, NASA and NOAA, the last two ones in the Public domain according the U.S. Laws.

The above DR is more than a mistake, is a careless behaviour that has been repeated over and over the time. Therefore, I request to the andmins the following:

  • Speedy close this, this and this DRs.
  • Get more concensus about Copyfraud. Copyfraud is punished in some circumstances, and acussing for Copyvio to someone innocent who transferred several files to Commons in good faith (including works in the PD) is a severe case of Copyfraud and a violation of the Deletion Policy.

Almost everyone could know the personal problems with this admin, but personal problems should be moved away, and pay attention to that actually matters. I'll not request anymore against this admin; I preffer to leave this case in the hand of other admins. But, invalid DRs and false copyvio accusations should not be allowed anymore. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

In an attemp to justify the disruptive DR, she answered this in her Talk page. By requesting to me to AGF, she are, IMHO, implicitily assumming that I'm assumming bad faith (and as the Spanish Wikipedia mentions, Assumming good faith does not mean Ignore bad actions, like the above careless DR). As I mentioned, is not easy to stay mellow when I spent several hours to research. Instead of taking responsibility (by, at least, closing the mass-DR). --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Jeesh, you must have made a lot of friends playing in the sandbox. Or are you still playing in it? COM:WORK OR FUCK OFF is still redlinked I see, I might need to make it. You've hounded Ellin, and you've been told to give it a rest in general. I see you've already wasted your time with a dozen edits just writing/editing this section alone, move on and do something constructive instead of calling out admins. People make mistakes. If you feel we're wasting your time and pulling you away from the OTRS queque, focus purely on that. I'd love to see you stay out of drama like the average user does. ~riley (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I could opted to just follow the DR and don't vote. But, what about if admins close the DR as Deleted? I don't thing that most of the admins will just follow the reasoning provided by Ellin Beltz and get rid the 174 files at once, but I fear might happen (and that already happened). Everyone know that deleting files without researching properly is a violation of the Deletion Policy (and some UDEL has been requested by Me due improper deletion). --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I see nothing wrong with the deletion nominations, which is not to say all should be deleted. If you believe you can argue to keep one or more files, please do so in the DR. If the closing admin feels that the files are too heterogeneous, that is for them to decide, not you. Certainly, I see no speedy keeps here (or indeed at the vast majority of those DRs where you !vote Speedy Keep). The only problematic behavior I see here is yours: with your attitude towards nominators in general, and Ellin specifically, your consistent failure to assume good faith, and also in your spurious Keep votes on obvious copyright violations and cavalier attitude towards licensing. The fact that someone with such a cavalier attitude towards licensing and such deplorable people skills is an OTRS agent is extremely troubling. Storkk (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I admit that I'm still confroontational. But, if you're talking specifically about the 174 files' DR, I found only few files that are actually copyvio; the rest are totally OK. The problem is that the DR is not just too heterogeneous (that should be detected by the user who opened the DR), but also totally innapropiate, for that reason, and the ammount of files nominated, the DR called my attention deeply. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this is not the proper way of communication, I admit. But I already told Ellin Beltz to be more careful, but she continued... and neither of us are newbies, we're longterm and experienced users; some times commit mistakes (even Me), but if a user (including admins) are already warned for such behaviour (including warnings to Me), them should not be repeated... but, one thing leads to another. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • We all do make mistakes from time to time. The links refer to deletion requests which are already months old with the exception of this one from yesterday. Probably the point that these files were transfered from other wikis was overlooked. This could have been solved with a nice little talk page contact. I do not see how a somewhat less than optimal DR opened in good faith justifies a thread at this board. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I mentioned the older DRs due this admin made exactly the same mistake with the latest DR that I cited. Is easy to determine that the DR is wrong even before opening, by seeing two or three files and say «oh, these files has been just transferred... and ohh! This file has been uploaded to Wikipedia more than 10 years ago! This file is from NASA, etc», but not, she claimed that the user who transferred the files to Commons is the sole uploader, and is not the first time. As I mentioned above, I already told this admin to be careful, but... --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Considering the DRs for Free Software screenshots, files perfectly free licensed, PD-textlogos (and also PD-US-1923) and very ancient symbols, DRs for advertsing published in the U.S. before 1989, and now, mass DRs without proper resear, that included files from OpenStreetMap, NASA and NOAA... I thing that we should give her an eight (or ninth) chance... --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
The first one failed com:EVIDENCE at the moment Ellin nominated the file, the second one I would have closed as delete based on Strokk's argument, third one is open for debate. Calling it above TOO is defendable. (evidence that it is pd-1923 is not provided though I do believe it is PD by age since it is an US logo), number four violated com:EVIDENCE at the time Ellin nominated the file. I don't see a problem with Ellin's DR's but I do see a problem regarding you hounding her. Natuur12 (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Well...
  • For the first one, evidence is required for people who don't know the well-know Free software (UNIX Desktop envs. like GNOME or KDE, LibreOffice, etc). You cannot claim Copyvio for works licensed under the GPL if the user didn't violated the GPL (screenshots properly sourced and licensed does not violate the GPL; removing the copyright notices from source or redistributing the source code and binaries -but not necessary the screenshots- under terms incompatible with GPL is violating the GPL, and therefore, copyvio). Abnd finally, this is a Wiki! Is easy to add the correct license tag, and the DRs should not be the way to force user to do that (remember the DRs for Wikipedia screenshots by Diego Grez-Cañete?)
  • For the second, deleting free-licensed files without proper research is a violation of the Deletion Policy and you know it very well. If these files got deleted, be sure that it will appear at COM:UDEL (just like a VLC Screenshot playing Big Buck Bunny deleted by a former admin)
  • The Bethlehem Steel logo case was already discussed, and I know how difficult is dealing with SVGs (and one of my jobs is convereting raster logos to SVG and transfer files to Commons). But claiming that the source is invalid due is not currently found but when was valid years ago... and this claiming also apply for DRs of several COAs downloaded from some U.S. Government website currently down (but valid at the moment of downloading). Claiming that the source is not valid is assumming implicitily the the user who uploaded the file is assumming bad faith by providing invalid sources (that actually, again, was valid) (and I felt that Ellin Beltz assummed that I assummed bad faith when transferred the file to Commons in good faith)
  • Fortunatelly you didn't mentioned the ancient symbols like the Taijitu or Swastika
  • Yes, Evidence is needed, but claiming Copyvio for (Copyfraud) suppossed to be PD in the U.S. due has been very likely to be published before 1989 is in some circumstances, IMHO, unlawful (and Copyfraud is not less unlawful than Copyvio)
  • And finally, why you think why I'm hounding her as several users mentioned? The non-sense DRs from her (the few) just remembered me the Fox stolen Double Dribble footage to be used in Family Guy and got down the 2009 video at Youtube case; this is a blatant abuse of Copyfraud, and I don't see differences with these kind of DRs (not only from her, but the most that I seen).
I finding consensus in order to be more careful (specially for the admins), but I seen only justifications, and neither explanation form her for her actions. I already explained my possition, with proof based on hours of research. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
1) Ellin is a geologist and not a software guru. Plus, false authorship information is a violation of the license. Well, it actually is a violation of any license that requires attribution which you should know as an OTRS-member.
2)No it isn’t. Deleting a freely licensed file isn’t always supported by policy but your overgeneralisation is false. Plus there is not some requirement that admins should meet the threshold of doing research you apply to others. And your comparison regarding the bunny screenshot is also false.
3)A standpoint that can be defended with fair arguments that follow the rules of logic. Disagreeing with someone’s interpretation of policy doesn’t make it necessarily wrong. I don’t always agree with Ellin’s viewpoint regarding no source nominations but that doesn’t make her viewpoint wrong. This should be solved via an intellectual debate and not with some mud fight.
4)Regarding the ancient symbol. Sure, the original Taijitu is PD but the arranging in that specific version doesn’t have to be especially if you take into account that some Asian countries like China have a low threshold of originality and we don’t know the source country.
5)Please avoid using the term unlawful. This might be seen as a legal threat though I don’t believe this is your intent. Anyways, using this kind of language might be intimidating for various users.
6)You have taken a particular interest in Ellin using rude comments and having a battleground mentality throwing stones from your glass house. But please read this section . You really need to mellow up and leave Ellin be. If you are correct others will complain, now it is just you trying to fight a wind mail. (I don't remember the family guy case since I am more interested in European cases.) Natuur12 (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Amitie 10g: Although critics are a benefit to the overall balance of things and for the good health of our community. And although we must assume that if you insist so often to point out errors made by Ellin, it's because you're nice and you want to help her improve. If this is the case, we will thank. However we are many administrators to be far from perfect, me the first of course, and we would welcome that you open here threads about each of us; and although we would be grateful that you help us improve, it will likely lead to assume the consequences because we do not have all the patience nor the good constitution of Ellin. Ellin, who is more patience and tolerant than you apparently. I hope you will ensure that your actions are not perceived as harassment by Ellin. Because it starts to be ambiguous and this is not a good way to take. Christian Ferrer (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

About four weeks ago, I dislocated my cervical ribs. This injury reduces mobility in my arms and causes significant pain, aggravated by computer use. The injury is not responding to treatment as expected. I apologize for the lack of usual promptness in responding to this, however at this time, I cannot provide this issue item by item attention, other than to say that all stories have two sides.

Everyone makes mistakes; this isn't a simple system. Even so, confrontation is not a solution, consensus is. I do not dispute Amitie's right to hold an opinion - even negative - of my actions, as we are all entitled to our own opinions. This situation has led me to form an opinion of my own: that Amitie's actions towards me have more in common with harrassment, misogyny and/or a witch-hunt than actions made in a spirit of cooperation and collegiality. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that everyone commited mistakes (even Me). But is not the first time and I already told you to be more careful, so don't expect the same patience if you're a newbie; you're an Administrator, and «With great power comes great responsibility.», and you should be responsible for your admin actions (and this apply to every Admin/Bureaucrat/Steward/WMF employee). Making the same mistakes over and over the time is is being irresponsible (specially when nominating more than 170 files at once; I didn't seen any other user nominating that amount of files for invalid or weak reasons).
And please, don't take this as harassment or the result of personal problems. Doing that means that you haven't learned anything (specially Copyright) in your long history as Admin. --Amitie 10g (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Your words include "you haven't learned anything", great! Now you see and you know that the method is not the way to make her understand your point of view. What are you going to do now? emphasize more? again and again as your title suggest it? You seem poorly placed to give lessons on learning, because it seems very difficult for you to understand that your approach is not appropriate despite the fact that it was told numerous times by several experimented users. Maybe now you can give her a hammer blow on the head, forgive me for the image, to make her enter your point of view inside her skull? or maybe you can give hammer blows on the head of each of us because apparently many of us do not endorse your approach. Enough with the jokes, we are pleased with your involvement, and we are sorry if you are frustrated by the actions of some of us, but please learn to work with others, learn to accept others. And if you manage to do that then you will have give us a great lesson. Show us your tolerance or keep your critical for you and your frustration will be even more ignored. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

  Question Could somebody with a native understanding of English check whether Amities's "I already told you to be more careful" may transport another meaning (besides the literally fact of an exchange of opinions about DRs) than that of some bugged old people speaking to a child about some clear wrongdoing? At least, this wording hints strongly to a large (but in my opinion, all but inexistent) social distinction. If I'm not mistaken in my understanding of English, then these utterances quite clearly are way outside of any civil communication, should warrant an adequate block for personal attacks and indeed provide an example for some misogynic and distasteful behavior. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I fully agree that the problem is not that Amitie_10g does not agree and says his disagreement to Ellin, but more the way he does this. It's far to much close and personal (in french: cavalier et familier) to in his way of communicating. It is possible to clearly disagree with someone in a polite way, e.g. "Hello, dear colleague, I disagree with you regarding the last DR that you initiated, because...." and even if there is no agreements in the answer, the discussion must go on in the same polite way. This is not negotiable. Ellin clearly don't appreciate it, she has already said that on several occasions, even several other users have already also said this. it is a fact that you do not want, yourself, to question this approach despite several warning from the community. Therefor I'm going to block you. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

FYI: new script version, test needed

Please take a look: MediaWiki talk:Gadget-DelReqHandler.js#New faster version ↔ User: Perhelion 04:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

DelReqHandler and DelReqHandler-lite

The DelReqHandler gadget has been updated with links to QuickDelete and to a red square with a question mark.

Such additions clutter the UI for admins who wanted a minimal gadget to help to process deletions without having a full comfort tool with 4 buttons instead of 2.

I've so forked the gadget to DelReqHandler-lite. If you don't want the new additions, you go to your preferences, uncheck DelReqHandler, check DelReqHandler-lite, and you get back the former version. --Dereckson (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dereckson: You light version is loading longer than the new one, and to be honest i am not a fan of creating forks of gadgets. You could modify the script to allow users opt-out from quick delete and usage tool instead of forking the old code. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to avoid a war edit on the gadget, because a red square is a blocker for me, more than 2 links another one. I'm not interested to take care of restoring the usability you destroyed. --Dereckson (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Which ability i destroyed? And you wanted to avoid a edit war? Nobody reverted the edit. So why are you using such strong words? Could you please read COM:MELLOW and COM:AGF? --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I also noticed that you are not regularly closing DR's, so i am wondering why you care so much and why you create unnecesary drama here? Why not asking at gadgets talkpage instead of creating drama here? --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
You're the one to speak of drama.
My action was to fork the version of the software you offer, to provide the legacy version without the new links. --Dereckson (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello Dereckson, why you open a new thread? ↔ User: Perhelion 16:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I didn't see your thread before posting mine. I was on a DR when I saw the new links pop in existence. --Dereckson (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

File:AheersAroundDelhi1868.jpg

Sorry for not knowing exactly where to report this problem. Revisions of the above file uploaded by user:Rahulheinzyaduvanshi appear to be copyvio, as a hi-res version of that image appears here. I have restored the proper image, but cannot delete the copyvio revisions, as I am not an admin on this wiki. Thank you, Diannaa (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: done. Thank you for the report. Green Giant (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Commons talk:Questionable Flickr images

Can we get an admin to look over/add the flickr accounts listed on Commons talk:Questionable Flickr images to the Bad Authors list please? Doesn't seem like there has been any action since mid April by admins over there. Thanks Elisfkc (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Problematic image

This image should probably be deleted as quickly as possible, but it's not clear that there is a speedy deletion criterion covering this situation. WikiDan61 (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done as a copyvio, it's not a Federal document. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Mass deletion

Hi. I'm not a frequent visitor to the Commons, so apologies if I have the wrong place for this. Over at English Wikipedia, Nghwaya created a number of articles that have been or are in the process of being deleted, as original research (verging on hoaxes). These include en:Uganda Calendar, en:Tanzania Calendar and en:Sukuma Calendar. As part of creating these articles, the editor also uploaded lots of files here, such as File:VUgandaGregCalL1.PNG. I can't see what use monthly calendar files with "Save the Rhino" and "AIDS KILL TAKE CARE" on will be. Is there any way to request mass deletion of these? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, instructions are here. All files should potentially be useful for a Wikimedia project. Thuresson (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Thuresson. I was hoping that there might be a way to do this without tagging each and every individual file, but I suppose there isn't? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid not. This is normally required so that users who have an image on their watchlist can be made aware that it is up for deletion. Thuresson (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the clarification. The reason I asked about this here rather than on a help page was that I was hoping it could be dealt with as a user conduct issue, but I understand why processes need to be followed. I will try to deal with this when I get the time to tag all of the files. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't take more than a minute with the help of Help:VisualFileChange.js. ~riley (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry: please use COM:VFC - it will make it much easier for you, and prevent mistakes. Storkk (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
d'oh... what ~riley said. Storkk (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, ~riley and Storkk. I didn't know about that, but will install it now and give it a go. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Just invoke it from the user's Special:Contributions and the script should take care of the rest. Storkk (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. What a great tool! Thanks guys. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Removal of comments, notices, and warnings from own talk page

Colleagues, Could you please clarify one thing for me.

Am I have an option to delete old comments and notifications from my own talk page rather then archive them? According to WP:BLANKING although archiving is "preferred" user still can choose to remove comments history from his own page. "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their user page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters if needed."

Secondly, If user chose to remove content, it's not recommended to restore removed comments as per WP:DRRC

Please share you opinion. Thanks, --Roo mate (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Why are you quoting WP policy? Let's remember this is not the English Wikipedia. ~riley (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. However, you are one of the people involved in conflict of interest on my talk page.
What happens now I feel under pressure , threatened with blocking without any valid reason and that way forced
to display “badge of shame” while I improved my behavior and issues from my side stopped long time ago.
Since that time I became familiar with copyright policies and follow them without questions.
Excessive and annoying moderation Is not any more required.
I would like to hear also other administrators position regarding the issue. Thank you. --Roo mate (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, it would be better if Roo mate would be allowed to blank their talk page. Commons' policy don't prohibit users to remove warnings, it is just discouraged. Please AGF and move on. Thanks, ★ Poké95 06:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't really consider one edit a conflict of interest. You disagreed with an administrator's actions, I agreed with that admin and enforced their action with an additional reversion. Once again, why are you quoting Wikipedia policy as if it has an effect on Commons policy? ~riley (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, there is similar language at Commons:Talk_page_guidelines#User_talk_pages, where archival is recommended, but not explicitly mandatory. Removal of "personal" messages where a reply "would be appropriate or polite" is noted as being potentially hostile, but I'm not sure removal of warnings and block templates warrants this (or any) level of drama. Storkk (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you all for your opinions.
Based on above and assuming good faith I will blank my UTP for this case only.
In the future I’ll use archiving as preferred option. --Roo mate (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Problem with a file

I try to find the tecnical forum section, but I couldn't find it.

Il this file File:Locator map of Navarre.png, I want to come back to the 8 march 2005 version, as it has been done for the others images of that scheme. But it seems that I was not able to do it. Can you help me ? --Berdea (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

To me it looks like you did successfully revert the image to the version of 8 March 2005. Try clearing your browser cache and reload the file page so your browser will get rid of any leftover images. De728631 (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Technical issues are best discussed at COM:VP, by the way. Nyttend (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The problem has been solved. It may be a question of purge (?).
COM:VP isn't it for general questions and not for tecnical questions ? --Berdea (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
According to Commons:For Wikipedians, COM:VP serves as both a general village pump and for technical questions, while this place is for administrator interventions/actions etc. Josve05a (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I was going by the note at the top of VP, This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Unlike en:wp, we don't split up the VP "entirely"; copyright and proposals have separate pages, but everything else goes onto the main VP. Nyttend (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Trace of Soul 2016

Hello. I am happy to inform you that Trace of Soul - a public photography competition, will be held this year too. We are asking your help to do update of Campaign:tos-rs (2015 → 2016). Also we want to know, can we get box for Monument ID, like WLM upload process has?--Bosko23 (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Httpk00k: social networking / image hosting

User:Httpk00k seems to be attempting to use Commons as an image hosting site for social-networking-like activities on enwiki. At the very least, their contributions appear not to be properly licensed -- they also appear to be inappropriate in several other ways at the same time. I have now deleted the referencing page, and blocked them on enwiki. Could someone please take a look at, and hopefully speedily delete, their uploads here? -- The Anome (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@The Anome:   Done files deleted, message left on user talk page. If there is more of this behaviour then a block could be warranted. Thank you for the report. Green Giant (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Free Stock Footage channel

Hello.Can I get a dedicated license for Free Stock Footage channel?Because I want to transfer several videos of them.All videos licensed under license appropriate for us.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Bangladesh Facebook sockmaster

Here's another sock: User:Fjfhhdhfa. 2 copyvio video uploads. INeverCry 17:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@INeverCry:   Done uploads deleted and user blocked. Green Giant (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Kazakhstani FOP cases deletion requests closure

Hello admins! I've got 8 deletion requests because of Kazakhstan's lack of FOP that have been open since May 6th. They are:

Thanks, Elisfkc (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Deletion requests from May about almost 5000 files are waiting for a decision, see Commons:Deletion requests/2016/05. I do not see any reason to give priority to these 8 DRs. Please be patient. Jcb (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Didn't know that, thanks. Elisfkc (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jcb (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

please delete File:Ke4kws.png

please delete file Ke4kws.png // ;) sorry, took the wrong picture ... thx --Z6ehswhha5HGRTd (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Z6ehswhha5HGRTd:   Done - please use {{speedydelete |1=Uploader request}} to request quick(ish) deletion of files that you uploaded in the last seven days. Green Giant (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Requests for cat moves

Could one of you admins kindly take a look on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/Category moves and do, whatever has to be done there? — Speravir_Talk – 15:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done. --Achim (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Revision deletion/hiding request

Can an admin please hide the offensive edit summaries here? The IP making those edits is LTA sockmaster Wikinger. INeverCry 21:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@INeverCry:   Done - already globally blocked. Green Giant (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Links to not existing pages in script files

In about 30 Javascript files you can find a line similar or exactly like this: Interested? See [[:commons:MediaWiki:JSValidator.js]] or [[:commons:Help:JSValidator]]. compare Search results for "jsvalidator" (there are some more results, you can refine the search). One thing is, that neither [[:Commons:MediaWiki:JSValidator.js]] nor [[:Commons:Help:JSValidator]] do work, that’s a software problem (commons:Commons:Administrators does not work, too), but also the pages MediaWiki:JSValidator.js und Help:JSValidator have been deleted about 2 years ago. Instead of adding about 30 edit requests I thought I’d ask here for deleting the obsolete line from these script files. — Speravir_Talk – 23:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Rillke: Pinging to explain the deletion deeply. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I mean this is not a matter of urgency, anyway Rillke is already pinged on this matter, but has only one edit since one month. ↔ User: Perhelion 09:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dalangdon

I seem to have hit a raw nerve here, so I'm going to take a step back, but if an administrator or other experienced user could step in, I'd appreciate it. The photo from the Truman Library can probably be saved, if someone can figure out an appropriate PD rationale and correct the file description. The others would probably require the uploader's assistance, which seems unlikely to happen. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

  •   Done You worked hard explain how to retain the images, the uploader instead reverted to four letter words and nasty statements about your private anatomy. The images aren't own work and I have removed them. Uploader also blanked content at the page where the photos were located, a different user has restored the text. Since they say they won't be back, I don't see any need to add a block at present. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I've spent 45 minutes researching the hotel lobby photo but found no other records and nothing better than "As far as the Library is aware, this item can be used freely without further permission.". Thuresson (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed fix for {{OK}}

It's likely that very few of us will have it on our watchlists, so I'd like to request a few pairs of experienced eyes to look over Template talk:Ok, where I propose a fix for the fact that {{OK}} with an empty parameter will have a dangling apostrophe and incorrectly bold and italicize the rest of the paragraph (e.g. →   ). Thank you. Storkk (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The suggested changes seems fine. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  Done. Thanks for your input. Storkk (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Possible Bangladesh Facebook sock

Can someone take a look at User:Zdfhckird? Only upload is a Bangladesh-related video, and the username fits. INeverCry 01:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

In v2c storage, this user has attempted uploading two videos, "hjg hguguf hvhvhf fhfh djdg" and "gjfjh hgygy fhfh fhfjh fjf" from redirector.googlevideo.com (the site has been blacklisted on v2c since yesterday, so his attempts failed). Based on that I can confirm this user is a Bangladesh Facebook sock as it's a duck. But unfortunately, his only upload here is indeed a CC-BY video on YouTube... --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Should be blocked for sockpuppetry/block evasion. INeverCry 03:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Blocked. @NahidSultan: can you review whether the file is in scope? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
This user is indeed a Bangladesh Facebook sock. I've run a check on loginwiki and found 3 more accounts. The uploaded file is a Bangla comedy short drama which is not released under CC license, I believe the YouTube channel in question is fall under COM:LL. ~ Nahid Talk 07:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
And found this facebook post about the user's uploaded video. ~ Nahid Talk 13:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Remove my rights

Please remove my user rights. I'm done here. BethNaught (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy keep needed

Can an admin close this spurious nonsense DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Treatise on gynaecology - medical and surgical (1894) (14594235818).jpg? Leyo already reverted the other vandal DR done by 63.143.116.0. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 18:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. --A.Savin 18:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Isn't that an archetypical example of a non-controversial keep eligible for a non-admin closure? I just wondered, as not earlier than two days ago, I exactly did such a closure... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I prefer closing of spurious DRs to be done by an admin in case of further disruptive/vandal edits where blocking and protection may be needed. A non-admin closure would probably be fine, though they're much more common on Wikipedia than here. I can't remember seeing more than a couple in my 7+ years here, even when I was an admin dealing with DRs daily. INeverCry 19:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I did far too many non-admin closures before my RfA, I didn't get in heck for them but looking back I should have left them for the same reasons INC named above. ~riley (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

userpage images of spammers (second opinion)

As suggested by the closing admin of Commons:Deletion requests/File:IttqhNoU6Iw.jpg, I'm hereby asking for a second opinion whether or not File:E6Ss6 aWV6g.jpg should be deleted even though it is in use on the userpage of a spammer on another project.    FDMS  4    21:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Please choose your words carefully before labelling users. Yes, this can be considered as promotional content, but I would not label it as spam or the user as a spammer. Unless I'm missing something in the translation, this is a typical promotional en:BLP. ~riley (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Commons:Village pump#(Un)user pages (permanent link) suggests that there is support for deleting user page images of accounts with no constructive contributions to any Wikimedia project within a reasonable time of creation. This fits that description. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
For reference, I adjusted COM:INUSE to clarify out take on self-promotional user page images. --Sebari (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I fully agree with your changes, but COM:INUSE is a policy page, so shouldn't these changes be discussed first, as the message at the top of the page says? --jdx Re: 12:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
It has been discussed under the link given above. Considering the non-controversial nature of this change, I deemed this discussion enough. --Sebari (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I created Commons:Deletion requests/File:E6Ss6 aWV6g.jpg. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

removal of listing query

good afternoon

I added listing for Byron and Beyond What's On Visitor Guide and The Only Accommodation Guide to Byron and Northern Rivers NSW free magazines published by paramount publication house. We are comparable to byron-bay.com (currently listed)based on the existing listing I'm not sure why mine was removed, could you clarify please?

regards Karen

1) This is not a question for the administrator's noticeboard.
2) This is not even a question for Wikimedia Commons.
You linkspammed en:Byron Bay, New South Wales and didn't even care to properly format your link. --Magnus (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Backlogging again

Greetings all admins: In May deletion requests we have 3,434 pictures remaining and in June deletion requests 3,252 although we are only 9 days into the month. Could everyone take a few minutes to go back and do some closes? Thanking you all in advance for your help! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Wonders out loud* This is happening so regularly that perhaps it is time to consider a change in the policy from seven days to a longer minimum, perhaps fourteen, twenty-one or dare I say it even twenty-eight days? It's not as though we should be in a hurry to delete these files, so why not shift some of the backlog by a smallish policy alteration? *runs for cover* Green Giant (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't think it would help, in fact it would probably make the situation worse. The easy closes are usually closed quite quickly after the seven day minimum (with exceptions). By artificially increasing the minimum time to close, you prevent closure of clear DRs until your new threshold, decreasing the items called a "backlog", but increasing the average age of DRs overall. Storkk (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Many of the closes which are needed are simple; please take a few minutes to review, thank you! This is happening regularly because there are a lot of people nominating and only a few closing. If more admins would take 5 minutes a day to do closes, we'd not be so far backlogged. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I suggested it on phabrcator muntiple times, and here on commons. We need a tool for automatically tagging/blocking obvious copyvios during the upload. That would automatically reduce the backlog a bit. Also a warning regarding the commons scope etc during the file upload would be helpful. Of course, that's WMF's job to create such a tool (we can't do that). --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Added a watchlist notice, hope that helps. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Per @MarkTraceur: (which is a WMF staffer) comment here automated copyright protection is "low priority". Cite: " In any case, it's blocked internally and low priority for us currently." --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

French translating

User talk:Apipo1907 - My french sucks, any french speaking admins able to help out? ~riley (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I've left a message asking why the user thinks they are blocked. Storkk (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Charles tillman 2016.jpg

Any Admin who believes this is US Government work is free to pass it. I am not certain here. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done, generally I trust people. I passed and categorized it. Taivo (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Taivo: However the page on Flickr says "All rights reserved". --jdx Re: 07:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but if this is work of US Army, then this is null and void statement. Taivo (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete all files in Category:Bornholms Amt

Hi

I have unfortunately observed, that there already is files (maps) showing the same as these new maps. Therefore I request, that my files in this category: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Bornholms_Amt&action=edit&redlink=1

... will be deleted.

/--Laketown (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  Resolved
Or so it appears. ~riley (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Michael Haephrati Desktop.jpg and non-free content

On the basis of this VP/C discussion, it appears that the image File:Michael Haephrati Desktop.jpg has a previous non-free revision that should probably be hidden. Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done Revision deleted. ~riley (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Quick sockuppet check

Hello, is it possible that the following users:

are in fact the same? They all uploaded just one or two images from papers co-authored by Georgehaller (talk · contribs), and almost all of those images are now used on en:Lagrangian coherent structure (an article where a conflict of interest currently exists). I believe that that person contacted their co-authors and convinced each of them to create an account to upload the relevant files. But I could be wrong and I just want to check. Thanks! Ariadacapo (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ariadacapo: Please take this to Commons:Requests for checkuser in accordance with COM:SPI. ~riley (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Done, thanks for pointing me to the right page. Ariadacapo (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Administrator behavior

I had a file deletion request made that got rejected by the admin that happened to handle the case. So, according to the policy at Commons:Deletion_policy#Appeal I got in touch with the admin in order to request a reconsideration, and I cited what I believed to be good reasons for it as they were also based on policy (see next link). The answer the admin provided at User_talk:Ellin_Beltz#Request_for_reconsideration was hostile for no reason at all and completely unhelpful. Leaving aside whether the deletion was right or wrong (it's not something to discuss in this page), the reason I am making this post here is so that a) it is established whether this sort of response should be acceptable, b) should it not be acceptable, to remind to the admin that we are all volunteers here and try to make things better, there's no need to presume someone has ulterior dark motives or is guilty by default, simply for making a request for reconsideration, and I hope this will help avoid having the same thing repeated with some other future contributors. Gts-tg (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

That response seems pretty mild to me. The file has been kept twice, and this latest keep by Ellin Beltz went by consensus. INeverCry 20:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Please read com:INUSE and com:NPOV properly before you start complaining. Ellin implemented our policy's correctly. Natuur12 (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I have read the policies involved before posting here, yet as I mentioned above, this is not about keeping the file or not and what policies are involved, and whether the policy was implemented correctly or not, it is about the type of response. If this response is deemed as mild and helpful, so be it. Gts-tg (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
OP received a timely and relevant answer from the admin. The file was kept by consensus and the OP had plenty of time to present arguments before a final decision was made. Thuresson (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
No concerns from my perspective on this closure, I'd have done the same. ~riley (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Ellin made a correct decision. It does not matter, how bad, erroneous and misleading the file is: it is used in multiple projects and so in our project scope. Taivo (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


With the exception of two people that at least had part of their reply cover what I asked about (User:INeverCry and Thuresson), which was whether the admin's initial reply was inappropriate, everybody else seems to concentrate on whether the decision was right or wrong, even though I made it specific that this is not why I have posted this message here. I wasn't going to comment further, but Taivo's comment -on what matters- is in need of a reply. As long as the material is under a free licence or PD, the policy permits any kind of material, no matter of what is being depicted and irrespectively of whether what it depicts is fictional, right, wrong, supposedly biased etc, as the material is useful in this capacity (e.g. a related policy text is at Commons:Deletion_policy#Self-promotion_or_vandalism.2Fattack). The policy certainly does not say anything about having POV descriptions and filenames (see the links below):

  • policy page (text section) neutrality of description should be aimed at wherever possible, and in any event neither filenames nor text may be phrased in such a way as to constitute vandalism, attack or deliberate provocation
  • Commons:File_naming#Naming, file names should be accurate

Can you please comment on the above? Gts-tg (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You have been answered by multiple admins, whose opinions are clear: that this is not obviously vandalism, attack or deliberate provocation, and appears to be enough of a matter of point of view and opinion that the matter should be adjudicated on the sister projects where the file is in use. Please stop badgering Ellin about this, too, and instead reread COM:NPOV, which is our official policy on these types of issues. Storkk (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Badgering? I replied to the user and formatted the paragraphs for legibility. How is this badgering? As for the admin replies, noone commented on the policy pages I posted (except for the person answering after you). I have re-read the policies you point to, can you read the policy pages I have pointed to as well and provide your thoughts? I do not think that I am asking for much. Gts-tg (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Please note that Commons:File naming#Naming is a proposed guideline/policy and regardless, a file name name can always be changed so its a separate issue and quite irrelative to the deletion discussion. ~riley (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
User:~riley based on Commons:File_naming#Naming and policy page do you think that the filename should be changed? Gts-tg (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Heads up on sock account

I've blocked User:Dilkesabdaage as a checkuser confirmed sock of User:Amir'khan12 on en-wiki. As they are a serial copyright-violating account, their edits should probably be checked and nuked here as well. Additional confirmed and blocked accounts can be found here if you would like to review their Commons contributions for additional copyvios. --Ponyo (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!--Ponyo (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Licensing

How Do I Know If The Images I Have Uploaded Are Copyright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncena163 (talk • contribs)

Unless you took the photograph yourself it's fairly safe to assume that all images, particularly those you find on other websites (I note your comment: "I have Found This Pic From Skysports An Croped It") are copyright. I advise you to read Commons:Licensing for further detail. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Manual reenumeration of translation units

What to do with this edit? It destroys the structure of the translatable page. --jdx Re: 01:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Itailevi011 uploads all potential copyright violations

A user going by various iterations of "Itailevi" is a persistent nuisance on both enwiki and hewiki, and his current iteration, Itailevi011 (talk · contribs) has uploaded a whole bunch of images of which two I have tagged as clear copyright violations. However I have absolutely no confidence that any of his uploads are his own work and it may be better just to nuke them all to be on the safe side. Just a heads up. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done I deleted last remaining uploads. All were small photos without metadata, one was found with Google image search on external sites. Taivo (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate images

Would anyone be able to help with the duplicate images I flagged up at User talk:Houjyou-Minori? That user is not the uploader, but is helping to identify the images. The images could be duplicated or merged or marked as duplicates (not sure what is best to do here). Many thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 06:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I deleted 6 files. Taivo (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

edit war in File:Yuan Dynasty 1294.png and File:Yuan ch.png

There are long term edit war on these two maps, because the situation of Goryeo during Yuan dynasty was disputed. though I started a discussion here, the edit war continues. In June 9, a new registered user Diogenes4196 (who only replace the map of Yuan in multi wiki projects[1]) revert the map again[2]. My opinion is, revert these two maps to the earliest versions, and protected until the dispute was settled.--122.90.105.130 15:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done File has been reverted to the earliest version possible and edit, move, upload has been set for administrators. When the dispute is resolved, please request unprotection on COM:AN/P. Thanks! — regards, Revi 15:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Deletion needed

Can an admin please delete User:Subsidies101/common.js? The account is indef blocked as a VOA. INeverCry 18:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Kaiziszm

The vandal has been blocked, but is it possible to mass-delete the crap uploaded by him? BTW, I think that earlier he was known as Szm020730. --jdx Re: 03:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done indefinitely blocked as sockpuppet of Szm02073. All uploads are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Re-asking: Trace of Soul

Hello. I am happy to inform you that Trace of Soul - a public photography competition, will be held this year too. We are asking your help to do update of Campaign:tos-rs (2015 → 2016). Also we want to know, can we get box for Monument ID, like WLM upload process has?--Bosko23 (разговор) 14:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC) --Bosko23 (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Fotografía Virgen de la Soledad

Buenos días, he visto que se ha borrado una fotografía de mi autoría, ésta fotografía cumplía con los requisitos y era de mi autoría no estaba cogida de ningún otro sitio. ¿Cómo puedo recuperarla? Muchas gracias. --Ubayrbd (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)Ubayrbd (discusión)

Unrelated text in Helpdesk

I’m not sure, whether this could be seen as vandalism, therefore here: In a section started by me an IP posted something totally unrelated in all caps. Could this safely be removed? See Special:Diff/199533876. I did not notice, that there is actuall a sig with the IP and added this: Special:Diff/199535000. — Speravir_Talk – 22:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done by Jmabel.[3] Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, thank you, then, Jmabel. — Speravir_Talk – 02:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of two copyright-violated revisions at File:Flughafenschleife Stuttgart 21.png

By the revisions 1 and 2 at File:Flughafenschleife Stuttgart 21.png two new versions of the image were taken from a website without proper permission. While the original (free) image has been restored, both versions should be hidden to clean up the rest of the mess. --Bigbug21 (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done. Thanks. Storkk (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! --Bigbug21 (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Active edit requests

Could one or two of you admins work on the active edit requests, please? One of them seems to need only template deactivation, and I’ve already pinged JuTa for this. For the DeleteInfo a German speaking admin is needed/Ein deutschsprachiger Admin wird benötigt für den Edit der DeleteInfo. — Speravir_Talk – 18:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Active copyvio editor

User:Ndududu is continuing to actively upload copyright content after an open Deletion Request and notification on talk page about it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

That note is on the user's User page, not their talk page (and you also did not sign it). In any case, I have deleted their contributions and given them a final warning. Thanks for your help. Storkk (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks like a problem user. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Long-term harassment and vandalism — advice needed

A Russian user named LxAndrew, who is active on Commons with uploading own photos and creating categories, repeatedly requested help on the Russian village pump, without much of result so far. In short, the issue is the following:

A former colleague of him, who hates him for unknown reason, is actively trying to bully LxAndrew out of Commons. They use different IP adresses, and apparently also different providers, making it uneffective even to block IP ranges. The vandal is watching every edit by LxAndrew and then reverting it, sometimes using offensive edit summaries. For example, see the revision history of one of LxAndrew's uploaded photos: File:Скопление_техники_в_Якутском_речном_порту.JPG. Due to excessive vandalism all by the same vandal, the file had to be semiprotected already, and this seems to be just one example amongst many. Here in this diff the vandal straightly admits via summary (in Russian) that his purpose is to bully LxAndrew out of all Wiki projects. As it seems, not only files suffer from this vandalism, but also categories created by LxAndrew. See also this thread on ANB and the contributions of IP's mentioned therein.

Now the problem is, that at the moment we cannot stop the vandal more than in the short term, because, as I already wrote, they are acting from different IP adresses and ranges. This story now has gone so far that LxAndrew had to throw his account and is now editing under a different user name or unlogged, but of course still has to watch all changes on pages created by the former account.

After the recent request, I tried to help: I was sure that it should be possible at least to semiprotect all his uploaded files, without to do it with each file by hand (there are at least hundreds). But oops: yesterday I failed to do the cascade protection (for User:LxAndrew/ Photos 1 and the other three lists) because it apparently only works for full protection! Any idea why it is so, and if there is any way to change it?

Given all that, LxAndrew wishes to have all his files and also all categories created by him semiprotected, which is - from my point - perfectly legitimate in this case given the special situation. But it is of course way too much work to protect all the files and pages one by one, whereas the cascading protection doesn't work for semiprotection and isn't possible anyway for anything else than files. The question is now: Is there any possibility to semiprotect all the stuff in more or less automated way? Such as a bot with sysop flag? If not, what can we do otherwise? The other option is to give LxAndrew sysop flag (as suggested by him on Russian VP) so that he can do all the necessary protections (and also blocks of the vandal IP's) himself and none of the other sysops had to invest their resources. But are we indeed ready to give the sysop flag to someone who is otherwise not known for any activities in topics that require sysop work? What do colleagues mean? Thanks in advance. --A.Savin 17:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The reason cascading protection works for full protection only is that semi cascading protection allows non-admins to semi-protect arbitrary pages. This is one of the MediaWiki core stuffs and there's nothing we can do about it. As for giving sysop flag, as far as I'm aware, we have never given single-purpose sysop flags in the past, except for bots. :( --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Cascade protection won't work for semi protections and semi protection all pages with a script would be possible but ugly. I think we should blacklist offensive edit summaries/possible vandalism etc. via AbuseFilter. Creating a new one or extending a existing ones (such as filter 34 and 39). By the way, commons got 1000 new abf conditions just recently :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, I understand now why cascading semiprotection isn't possible. The option with an abuse filter I had in mind as well and I really doubt that we can do it by blocking some edit summaries (the mentioned vandal not always uses edit summary, and when, not always offensive, whereas all they do are bad faith reverts anyway), but: maybe there is a way to create an AF that prevents anonymous users from editing all the files on User:LxAndrew/ Photos 1/2/3/4. If yes, this would be in principle the same as semiprotection, but (hopefully) much more easily done than browsing through all the files. --A.Savin 18:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
AFAIK, AF can not fetch an arbitrary page text. Perhaps there could be an AF variable "image in use on", but since that is quite expensive (the variable can be really long), I doubt it would be added. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding a category to a protectecd file.

Please add Category:Political maps of Europe to File:UK location in the EU 2016.svg--Lava03 (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed changes to custom TitleBlacklist error messages

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T115259

Hi, I am planning to make some changes to your custom TitleBlacklist error messages to make them display correctly in UploadWizard and the cross-wiki upload dialog. The JavaScript-based tools use a simple version of the MediaWiki parser for performance, and not all of the wikitext syntax currently used works in them (you can't use templates, since it doesn't have access to the database; other big missing parts are paragraphs, lists, bold and itelic). The affected messages are:

Message Proposed version Diff
titleblacklist-custom-hidden-char proposed version diff
titleblacklist-custom-filename proposed version diff
titleblacklist-custom-SVG-thumbnail proposed version diff
titleblacklist-custom-thumbnail proposed version diff
titleblacklist-custom-double-apostrophe proposed version diff
titleblacklist-custom-no-fileextension proposed version diff

I'll also make similar updates to any translations of these messages. Unless anyone opposes it, I'll make the changes later this week. (As a side note, if you're already looking at them, this would be a great opportunity to update them and tweak the wording, as some of them were last changed nearly seven years ago!) Matma Rex (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'm doing it then. Matma Rex (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

All done. You can see the list of changes on my Contributions page: [4]. I also marked a few templates which are no longer used for speedy deletion (search the list for "speedy"), I'd appreciate if you could delete them. Matma Rex (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Photographs by Nándor Juhos

Hi!

Please restore deleted photos from this category because it is their OTRS OTRS in the license. No: 2016030810015014. The delete the images not legally. Administrators performing the deletion will not bother to follow after him, really do not have sufficient permissions on the pictures. Since we have permission to use the images in the specified license, please restore them . Thanks! Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know how many forums you want to shop about this. The files were deleted because of tags YOU placed. YOUR error has been fixed now. No problem that you make mistakes, but stop throwing random accusations after you made one. Jcb (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I have not made a mistake, but you, having looked after not a simple thing. Namely that the images with or without permission. The pictures I have a template that shows that you have a license, but not yet placed out. The existence of a licensing OTRS manager confirms, rather than the image uploader. Suppose I'm not OTRS manager. How should I know that the OTRS accepted the license if the OTRS not informed? How should I know the serial numbers of the license, which only OTRS managers easily find out the number and the answer arrives? (Especially me as a charger not only inform the author of pictures). Quite a coincidence that OTRS'm handling it, but why not treat them to point to the images that I upload and enable ye (in order to avoid conflicts of interest). Easy to accusations that I am to blame. But I think we should rather think about the above, and to see whether, as the administrator or even not sure that you are always right. In this case, it is sure that you're wrong. You made a mistake. That's it. Not a big problem. It did not fall from the world. A bigger problem is when someone is unable to admit the mistake.

In it, I wrote it here, very simple reason: I do not think you ought to practice a little self-criticism , and to reflect the aforementioned ones , when you realize that you did not you were right. I do not expect that due to mistakes , or because of the baseless accusations apologize ( because I'm sure to wait in vain ) , it has more than enough , if a little ponder . Have a nice day! Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

A simple look at the file history will tell everybody that you are talking nonsense. Now please stop bothering us. Jcb (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it nonsense. Nonsense what you do. I see that rational arguments can not impress on you , so I 'm asking , let alone the one I uploaded pictures and leave me alone in my edit it. There is plenty administrator is outside of you, who will deal with what I 'm doing, because apparently you are too blind or towards me . THEY? leave each other alone. It would be best for both of us. Good bye! Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

No, I will continue dealing with maintenance queues and I will not filter out your uploads. You cause a lot of inconvinience, apparently mainly because of a total lack of understanding of our procedures, possibly caused by a limited ability to understand English. If you cause inconvinience, admins will deal with that. You cannot stop that by requesting any admin you happen to come accross to stop dealing with your uploads. Jcb (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

You might get limited English, you are limited, however, you realize what you are saying. You're arrogant and conceited. There is no more to say to you. All your edit in my direction I will explain further deliberate harassment . Such an attitude is unsuitable or administrator. For my part, I really have nothing to say anymore. I suppose you will have something to say, because apparently I can not bear for you if you do not have the last word. In fact, I can also imagine that now blokkolsz or blokkoltatsz. Go ahead! Let the certainty of the truth. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Fesali and Петко Игорь Алескандрович

The first one uploaded a few photos of dogs, some of them evidently copied from the Web. Then the second changed author's name to his own (user) name, even for files which seem to be OK. And now he removes valid copyvio/delete templates and plays with licence tags. Also please look at the history of File:Далматин (сучасний тип).jpg – it is likely] that they are the same person. --jdx Re: 12:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I just blocked Петко Игорь Алескандрович 1 day for this personal attack. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, both accounts belong to the same person. --jdx Re: 13:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Welp, I blocked both for 1 week, personal attacks like this are not acceptable on this project. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Deletion failing

The deletion tools are snafu again, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by S.Monirul Islam, which I tried to close as deleted, three images are refusing to delete. If someone can wave a better magic wand to remove those, I would be grateful. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleted, the media storage/file backend is causing a lot of problems in the last months :-(. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I come accross those errors daily. Normally it works if you come back 10 minutes later. You can also mark them {{Delbug}} to prevent them from being forgotten. Jcb (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Restauration de droits photos

Je confirme par la présente être l'auteur et le titulaire unique et exclusif de l'œuvre publiée Je donne mon autorisation pour publier cette œuvre sous la licence GFDL / CC-BY-SA 4.0. Je comprends qu'en faisant cela je permets à quiconque d'utiliser mon œuvre dans un but commercial, et de la modifier dans la mesure des exigences imposées par la licence. Je suis conscient de toujours jouir des droits extra-patrimoniaux sur mon œuvre, et garder le droit d'être cité pour celle-ci selon les termes de la licence retenue. Les modifications que d'autres pourront faire ne me seront pas attribuées. Je suis conscient qu'une licence libre concerne seulement les droits patrimoniaux de l'auteur, et je garde la capacité d'agir envers quiconque n'emploierait pas ce travail d'une manière autorisée, ou dans la violation des droits de la personne, des restrictions de marque déposée, etc. Je comprends que je ne peux pas retirer cette licence, et que l'image est susceptible d'être conservée de manière permanente par n'importe quel projet de la fondation Wikimedia

Merci

File:Eau de Gaga bottle.png

I apologize if this is not the correct forum, but a user uploaded a picture of a copyrighted perfume bottle (above) and released it under the free license. Can an admin check if its valid to do so? IndianBio (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done: Deleted per copyvio (grabbed from http://ladygagaxcollection.weebly.com/eau-de-gaga.html). --Achim (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Patch of the New York City Police Department.svg

Good Morning,

I am Kevin Gleeson. I am the Administrative Graphic Artist for the New York City Police Department. It has come to my attention that the logo on the (File:Patch of the New York City Police Department.svg) Wikipedia page is incorrect. I would like to make the correct logo available for public use. How can I best go about accomplishing this?

Thanks,

Kevin Gleeson Administrative Graphic Artist Strategic Communications Deputy Commissioner, Strategic Communications One Police Plaza, Room 904D New York, N.Y. 10038 (646) 610-6957 office — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin P Gleeson (talk • contribs) 14:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kevin: There is also a photograph of the actual patch at File:Usa - new york - new york.jpg, and a File:Patch of the New York City Police Department.png png version.
I'd suggest creating a correct version, uploading it with {{PD-US-no notice}} in the license field and add it to the following categories: [[Category:1971 in New York City]][[Category:1971 works in the United States]][[Category:Insignia of the New York City Police Department]][[Category:Police patches of New York]][[Category:Public domain - New York City government]]. Then please let me know and I can replace the old uses with the new one. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Seanzhang1017 (talk · contribs)

Probably This account is Leehsiao (talk · contribs)'s sockpappet. Please investigate and block it.--Y.haruo (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done Yesterday I deleted these photos, today I see them deleted by others again. Surely this is the same user. Indefinitely blocked as sockpuppet. Taivo (talk) 06:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I hope nobody minds my blocking Leehsiao and adding the puppeteer tag. INeverCry 06:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Mistake

I make a mistake. Is-it possible to undo everything I have done to day at 10:52 [5] : I have erase a category with Cat-a-lot, but I didn't want to do that. Thank you very much. --Berdea (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Reverted en masse. You may see lots of red warnings on notifications based on your settings but otherwise it should be done now. — regards, Revi 11:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hola

Quisiera saber por qué han borrado las imágenes que he subido??--Pp96 (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Se estimó que era poco probable que usted era el fotógrafo de todas las fotografías que haya subido. Debe seguir las instrucciones aqui: COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

License reviews by bad licences

Hi!

I was wondering if the licence review process for uploaded photos is currently stringent enough.

Based on what I see a number of reviewers just perfunctorily look at photo licences and allow photo uploads where the licence is there but it is not valid. Apparantly some reviewers don't cross-check to confirm whether that licence is truly valid or not.

What could be done to make the licence review process more rigorous?

I initiated a "user-talk": User talk:Leoboudv#Question by Fauvirt and Commons talk:License review#On the_picture, not taked by license reviews. Fauvirt (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Persistent uploads of similar files by multiple users

How does one generally go about dealing with situations such as Special:Undelete/File:House_Of_Spirits.jpg and Special:Undelete/File:蔡思貝.jpg ? Storkk (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/109 and Bots

I just noticed the abuse log for CommonsDelinker and my interwiki-removal bot task. By warning bots, the filter is literally blocking every single bot edit to pages marked with {{Policy}} (well, unless the bot is programmed to explicitly override warnings, which isn't supposed to happen for most bots). Any objections to excluding bots from the filter triggering? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  Done Special:AbuseFilter/history/109/diff/prev/1230 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion fails

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T132921

I don't know about anyone else, but I've been getting tons of deletion fails lately, with "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/", lock errors, api errors, etc. I can usually go back after 30 mins to an hour and successfully delete the images, but it's still a significant hassle. INeverCry 23:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

phab:T132921 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
April 4th...   INeverCry 05:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Been such complaints on the English Wikipedia as well yesterday. I didn't encounter any issues myself but some other admins did.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Please note that yesterday there was a relatively large issue on almost all databases of Commons, so there were yesterday temporarily more issues than usual (read only, api issues) https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T139346 That in particular should be fixed now, though. --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 08:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Much better today. Only a couple fails. INeverCry 01:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Cigarette packet warning signs in Ukraine

Hello.All these files mustbe deleted according to according to Commons:Derivative works.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cigarette packet warning signs in Ukraine. Speedy deletion is not necessary in this case. ★ Poké95 11:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Commons talk:Non-copyright restrictions/de edit request

help of German speaking admin is needed for Commons talk:Non-copyright restrictions/de edit request. --Jarekt (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  Thank you. --Jarekt (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Temporarily restoring deleted image for transfer to en:wp

File:SBENU Logo.jpg was deleted on copyright grounds, but as the logo of en:SBENU, it's easily acceptable under en:WP:NFCC. I vaguely remember that there's a process for doing the transfer (more "official" than restoring the image, downloading it, writing up a rationale manually, uploading to en:wp, and deleting it here), but I haven't a clue what it is or how to start it. I thought of going to COM:HD, but I figured that admins were more likely than the general editor population to be familiar with it. Nyttend (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

See also Commons:Village_pump#Fair_use_delete_move_bot... I think this comes up reasonably often (also for {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}-related deletes like this one), but there seems to be no good solution for the time being. Pinging @Fæ: who can comment further, but essentially unless an admin who has the technical chops and inclination to run a bot line COM:FUUB steps forward, I think we're stuck with the manual way. I know billinghurst does a bunch of temp restorations for moves to wikisource; he might have input too. Storkk (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
A key reason that the FUUB has stayed low on my secret todo list, is because (a) nobody has been asking for it for well over a year and (b) so few images ever get marked for transfer. If it is realistic that the use of the bot could ramp up to more than the current handful a week (which I think is the current sort of actual rate), then I could look at getting it tested and running probably in September; accounting for holidays and other important stuff.
If anyone is keen, please nudge me in a month or two on my talk page so I remember. --Fæ (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Copy Vio

Hello,

I recently observed a copy right violation of an image used in the article Adi Parashakti. Though i reverted the edits to a previous version, the image file, File:16192 kameswara kaameswari.jpg remains still in the commons page. The picture originally belonged to www.manblunder.com and the owner of the website holds the copy right . Please remove the image from the commons page. Thanks & Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavanai45 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 08 July 2016 (UTC)

@Pavanai45: Tagged as copyvio. ★ Poké95 03:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for file protection

For reasons unknown to me all these mobile-scum like to vandalize some files more often than others, eg. File:WhatsApp logo.svg or File:Diadumenos MET 25 b.jpg. IMO it's time to protect them. --jdx Re: 14:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested Audit

On the English Wikipedia I recently blocked a promotional only account, however in a review of the account's contributions I have discovered that the now blocked account Mpsdoctor (talk · contribs) may have uploaded copyright images here. I am therefore asking if any administrator here would be willing to look at the images this account uploaded (if there are any still on site) and make sure that they are copyleft; if not, then they need to be deleted forthwith. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I've checked his remaining 4 uploads and found only File:Dr. Kendall Roehl.jpg to be possibly missing a permission, as this high-res image has the name of the likely photographer in its EXIF data. --Túrelio (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Issue with caption on Bosnian census maps

The full results of the 2013 Bosnian census were finally released at the end of June. For the uninitiated, the census has been the subject of considerable controversy, with the statistical office of the Bosnian Serb entity contesting the results. Tresnjevo has helpfully created some maps (e.g. File:BiH - Etnicki sastav po opstinama 2013 1.gif) based on the results, but I am concerned about their captions. As Praxis Icosahedron has noted with a dispute tag, contrary to what the captions claim ("opposite of European statistical standards"), Eurostat have said that the methodology is consistent with international standards. What would an appropriate course of action be here? Tresnjevo, are you willing to reconsider the captions? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to user Larry for raising the issue. As already explained, the maps feature (in BSC and English) the unsubstantiated claim of the census methodology being opposite to "European standards". At the same time, we do have a source which explains that the European Union's statistics office, Eurostat, deemed the census methodology to be in line with international standards in May 2016, just ahead of the long-awaited publication of the census results. Now, I have been following the census process rather closely since 2013 but I am yet to encounter a single significant, non-Serb, source which considers the methodology to be invalid (the controversy, and the resultant delay of results, being due to political Serb opposition to the methodology which they claim brings about an unjust increase in the percentage of Bosniaks). In addition to the downright erroneous claim (quite possibly a POV issue), the maps additionally feature dubious representations of demographic data in at least one instance, namely for the Bosanski Petrovac municipality in northeastern Bosnia. Both Bosniaks/Islam/Bosnian and Serbs/Orthodoxy/Serbian are given a population percentage of 50-75 % for the municipality in question, which for obvious reasons is impossible. In the corresponding composite maps of all major ethnic groups, religions and languages in the country, however, the Serbs/Orthodoxy/Serbian is consistently assigned a population of 50-75 % for the municipality. I do not have a definite answer on which one is right (whether it is the Bosniaks or the Serbs who constitute the absolute majority), but the elected mayor of Bosanski Petrovac in the post-war era has been a Bosniak, which should give a pretty accurate indication on the ethnic makeup of a municipality in a country which is strictly divided along ethnic lines. Whatever the case, the issues hitherto revealed and presented here bring the overall credibility of the maps into question, for my part. What complicates the matter all the more, is the amount of attention required to verify a map of this kind (tons of data). So needless to say, confidence in the author is of fundamental importance. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
According to the published results, Bosanski Petrovac's population is 43.4 per cent Bosniak, 54.5 per cent Serb. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

European Union indeed recommends to statistical agencies that citizens who live and work abroad for more than one year should not be considered as permanent residents, and that recommendation is followed by majority of countries in EU and former/current candidates such as Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia. That very same recommendation was sent to Agency for statistics of Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time when census was held. However, EU decided few weeks before results were announced to make an exception and accept that such citizens can be considered as permanent residents which is a paradox and obviously a political decision. This is combination of methodology that was used in 1991 census ̈(all citizens who officially have address in country) and EU methodology (all permanent residents even foreign citizens) which results in higher number of population comparing any of two methodologies used so far. What I stated in notes is that disputable methodology was used and that Republic of Srpska doesn't recognize these results as relevant. That means exactly what I wrote - results are disputed by one of two entities in country and that entity doesn't recognize them. I would personally always like to see census results with both methodologies as that give more insight in citizens vs residents ratio, but none of two known methodologies was used here as I already explained. The only place where I wasn't specific enough in notes, and I agree there with user who started this topic, is part of sentence where "European standards" are mentioned. Even though EU was consistently (for last 15 years at least starting from Croatian 2001 census) insisting on new methodology until few weeks ago, their recent decision to accept combined methodology that is in the opposite of their general policy makes things more complicated. In order to avoid any confusion, "European standards" has been replaced with "standards used by majority of European countries" in notes on all census 2013 maps. Regarding Bosanski Petrovac, data provided above is correct (Serbs 54.5 / Bosniaks 43.4) and can be confirmed hereː http://www.statistika.ba/#link1. Tresnjevo (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The claim about the census not meeting "standards used by majority of European countries" would benefit from a source. Regarding Bosanski Petrovac, as Praxis Icosahedron notes, you have shaded the municipality as 50-75 per cent on both the Bosniak and Serb maps. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply Tresnjevo, although I do have some objections. It is not really what you are trying to say as to how you are saying it. The fact that you consider the claimed recent switch in methodology by the EU to be "a paradox and obviously a political decision" amounts to nothing more than your personal POV at the time, unless you can provide reliable and relevant sources which directly support such an assertion. POV and original research is not acceptable. On that point, we will also need you to provide reliable, relevant, non-partisan, sources which deal with the "standard methodology" as in relation to the Bosnian census. I.e. we need a source which affirms the standard methodology to be as per your description and the Bosnian census methodology to differ from such a described "standard methodology". Everything else would be reminiscent of conclusions based on original research. Moreover, you write "What I stated in notes is that disputable methodology was used ", which once again rings my POV alarm. Disputable according to whom? You? The Serbs? It is one thing to have one opposing party claiming it to be disputable (hence a controversy) and entirely another to hint the census methodology to be disputable as per general fact. I'm afraid your outset is rather biased with a firm belief that the census methodology is to be considered disputable according to general fact, which is to say the least an incendiary stance to have in a controversial matter. To summarize: yes, the methodology is beyond doubt disputable in the eyes of the Serb side (hence the controversy), but far from so in a general statistical aspect (unless you have - once again - reliable, relevant, and non-partisan sources which conclude the opposite). Until then, the methodology is disputable solely according to the Serbs, which must be emphasized for NPOV. Thus, we have really not solved the issue but merely concluded that you will need to support your claims with reliable sources, or else the maps will continue to be contested. Another option is, of course, to simply exclude all the non-demographic claims from the maps and stick to pure demography. I have not checked your maps since tagging them, but there is yet no reason to have the tags removed. Also, as explained already, the claim that the Bosnian census methodology differs from "standards used by majority of European countries" will need a source given the current controversial nature of the matter. Look here, sure enough, you sound like an editor knowledgeable in the topic, but that unfortunately does not really cut it for Wikipedia which is based around reliable sources (which become all the more important in disputed topics). We can't just take your word for it. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, "a paradox and obviously a political decision" is my point of view. But that's not what I put in notes on maps. I only mentioned in notes that census results are disputable and not recognized by Republic of Srpska authorities. My opinion or opinion of majority of Serbs is not relevant in this case, same as anyone's else on Wikipedia. Relevant is what authorities on different levels of some country say, and statistical office and government of Republic of Srpska claim that methodology is disputable. Maps need to state that results are not accepted by Republic of Srpska because they will publish results with different methodology in future, and I wanted is to make clear which results are represented on these maps. If I ever make maps based on different methodology I will put notes that those results are published by authorities of Republic of Srpska due to dispute about methodology as well. I agree that you don't need to take anyone's word for granted and that sources should be generally provided. But I don't think it's fair to expect from me to provide 30 links to statistical offices of Europe that will confirm the fact that almost all (and I put only "majority" in notes) EU countries and candidate countries follow EU statistical regulations. There are many official sources for methodology recommendations, here is one that I found first minute of browsing onlineː EU legislation on the 2011 Population and Housing Censuses. On page 66, Topic: Place of usual residence paragraph (d)ː An institution shall be taken as the place of usual residence of all its residents who at the time of the census have spent, or are likely to spend, 12 months or more living there. There are many other EU documents that have same recommendation because, as I said, they have those guidelines for at least 15 years. Since there is no room on maps to to cite whole documents and full names of multiple institutions I will reference this document in description of maps, as well as some other sources. Tresnjevo (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Could you please discuss this at the file talk page? This is not something which requires admin attention. Thanks in advance. Natuur12 (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Apologies, Natuur12. That's my fault. I brought this issue here because it concerned a dispute over a large number of images. I agree that the discussion can now take place elsewhere. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion continued at User talk:Tresnjevo#Correction requested. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Watermarked images

Can someone look at Special:Contributions/Teddyshouse? 11 watermarked images from 2012. Not sure if they need deleting or watermarks removed. Carcharoth (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

http://www.fotohouse.co.ke/ is the website the watermark is about, for the record. I see contact information but no license. One of the operators is named Teddy maybe they are the uploader? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Dividing file versions

Instead of uploading as new file, User:Avner updated File:Краявіды Лужкоў 01.jpg and requested file renaming: Special:Diff/201466450/201466712 (declined by me). But the first file version is different from his upload, and it is part of a series. Therefore I want to suggest, to divide the versions and give Avner’s file the name according to his wish File:Помнiк Эліэзэру Бэн Егуде ў Лужках.jpg (the number is not needed). Also, Avner should be pointed to his serious mistake. — Speravir (Talk) – 21:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

BTW this is related to en:Eliezer Ben-Yehuda.— Speravir_Talk – 22:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  Done History split done. INeverCry 23:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I've also left a note about overwriting on Avner's talk. INeverCry 23:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Aah, COM:OVERWRITE. And thank you, INeverCry. — Speravir_Talk – 01:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Image of Ruja Ignatova

File:Доктор Ружа Ігнатова.jpg. Own work?--RicHard-59 (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems like a professional photograph. Are you silently saying the uploader is probably not the owner of the photo?. Do the uploader have a long history of copyvios? Wikicology (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
See User talk:ViKo&Lily.--RicHard-59 (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for bringing my attention to the talk page notice, I find it helpful. My investigation revealed that the image was published here on August 8, 2015. It was used by businessforhome.org on October 1, 2016 and used as cover photo by Forbes Magazine here in the same year. The work was published here on October 19, 2015. Since the image has been published elsewhere prior to uploading it here, the uploader is unlikely to be the copyright holder of the work. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Zahirabarqi violating copyrights again

Hello. The user Zahiralbarqi has been violating copyright laws repeatedly again. Can you please block this user?--100.36.171.168 18:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done ~riley (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Coming Friday: Freedom of Panorama in Belgium

Hi all!

As announced earlier, Freedom of Panorama comes in Belgium into force coming Friday 15 July 2016.


According to Belgian law, a law change comes into force on the 10th day after the publication in the Belgian journal (Belgisch Staatsblad / Moniteur belge). (source: fr/nl)

Publication took place on 5 July 2016. (source: fr/nl)


Some things need to be updated, like: Commons:Freedom of panorama + Template:NoFoP-Belgium. And created: Template:FoP-Belgium, similar to for example Template:FoP-Nederland or Category:FoP templates

About 1411 images that have been deleted on Commons as result of no Freedom of Panorama, need to be restored - similar to Public Domain Day. See; Category:Belgian FOP cases

Please make sure you categorise the restored files, which can mean that the category needs to be restored too.

Based on the deletion log I will collect the restored images, similar to Public Domain Day.


For those in Belgium (or close), be welcome to join our launch event in Brussels:

Thanks all! Romaine (talk) 10:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Great to hear! And it includes sculptures. I'm ready to do some restorations. INeverCry 17:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I think all the restorations are going to be done by a bot  . We are very glad about that law ! --M0tty (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
We're being slowly replaced by bots...   INeverCry 19:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I, for one, welcome our new bot overlords. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
So this new law retroactively grants copyright exemptions? Interesting. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
@M0tty: be careful: some deletion requests are a combination from inside and outside Belgium. Romaine (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Great news! I have deleted whole mole of Atomiums. They can all be restored on 15th. Taivo (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

This is great news. Are there any WWI memorials in Belgium that might have fallen foul of this (I have an interest in WWI memorials and some of those in France fall foul of freedom of panorama, but am not sure about the ones in Belgium)? If this ever happens in France, how many images would get undeleted after that? Do they just pop back into the categories or is some human tidying needed after the undeletion? Carcharoth (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Some human review will be necessary. Sometimes categories are emptied by FoP deletions, and are in turn deleted, so those have to be restored along with the file/s; other files may need to be better categorized or described, especially if the FoP deletion was done soon after upload. INeverCry 17:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@Carcharoth: It depends on how many deletion request are actually tagged with the relevant category that they have been deleted for the FoP reason. I think there are still many deletion requests that have not been tagged with this category and thus are not undeleted, sadly. Romaine (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
We may be able to find some of these through searches in the Commons namespace. I remember I found some untagged DRs that way when Russian FoP changed. INeverCry 00:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Good search is [[COM:FOP#Belgium. Taivo (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
insource:/\[\[COM\:FOP\#Belgium/ with Commons: filter. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Another way of finding deleted images in need of undeletion may be to check the deleted contributions of our most active users in Belgium. INeverCry 20:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Another step we can do now is to copy images to Commons that have been locally uploaded on some Wikipedias (because there was no FoP). Romaine (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Results

In total 1493 images have been restored on Commons due Freedom of Panorama in Belgium. An overview can be found at: User:Romaine/Freedom of Panorama/Belgium

If anyone knows more restored images, please add them to the page or let me know. Thanks! Romaine (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Please move protected files.

Obviously these are not road signs and should not be in Category:Diagrams of triangular warning road signs with (!). Please move them to Category:Exclamation mark warning signs. Fry1989 eh? 19:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

RFCU move

Please move Commons talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/ヤっ太郎 to Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/ヤっ太郎. Thanks. Regards, 153.230.103.116 07:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done. --★ Poké95 07:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC) (non-admin action)

edit request

Please add the Main Page of "Hak-kâ-ngî (hak)" in Template:Lang-mp: 

<!--hak-->{{lang|hak|{{nowrap|[[Thèu-ya̍p|{{#language:hak}}]]}}}}{{·}}

--El caballero de los Leones (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 17:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Replacing an outdated gadget

One of the gadgets in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets is RegexMenuFramework, but its documentation tells us: “The regex menu framework has been merged into TemplateScript, which is much more powerful and compatible with the latest MediaWiki changes. This script is no longer maintained and shouldn't be used; feel free to contact me if you'd like me to migrate your scripts to TemplateScript.” I think this should be done in Commons. — Speravir_Talk – 20:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Please delete 3 wrong redirects

Instead of 3 speedy deletion requests: I had erroneously renamed 3 files to a wrong name. After noticing this I fixed it by a second renaming. But now there are these factual wrong redirects:
File:Sunset_in_Potsdam_-_DSC05492_(6976467092).jpg, File:Sunset_in_Potsdam_-_DSC05496_(7122609929).jpg and File:Sunset_in_Potsdam_-_DSC05499_(7122610227).jpg.
The reason for my mistake was, that 2 of them had already been categorized in Category:Potsdam, and later I renamed the third accordingly. Unfortunately too late I had the idea to look in which position the images are in the photographed series. — Speravir_Talk – 21:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 21:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. — Speravir_Talk – 22:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

What to do with PD-mark licensed images from another country's flickr account?

Can an Admin decide what to with these images which have the PD-mark license but come from the official Polish government. Is is it PD--and should Commons accept them or should we delete them on the precautionary principle? They have not been marked for many months.

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  •   Comment IMO @Revent made a mistake because this is not a normative act or an official document or a symbol (ie. a flag, a coat of arms or logo of a government organization). It's a photo taken by an employee of Polish PM's office, so IMO {{Polish KPRM files}} seems to be the right tag (however it was not available at that time). --jdx Re: 19:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jdx: I don't think it was really a 'mistake' (as you noted, the specific tag did not exist at the time) but a case of using the 'best available' solution... I tried to make it clear in the edit summary that the tag I used was not an optimal solution, but instead 'what was available'. Images from that feed seem to meet the definition of 'official material', as detailed at Template_talk:PD-Polishsymbol#What_is_.22official_material.22, so I used a tag that pointed at the correct section of the legal code even if the actual template was a bit misleading. I would agree that the more specific tag should be used, though it should be edited to provide a legal justification for the claim made. Reventtalk 20:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

request for removal - errors in new file

File Versions 14:58, 19. Jul. 2016 and 15:06, 19. Jul. 2016 on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Das_Modell_einer_Wertkette.svg werer generated with or due to an error in the uploaded file. They can be removed. Latest Version 15:28, 19. Jul. 2016 is as originally intended.

  Done uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Change names 200 to 6400 vice versa

Hey dudes, I made a mistake, could you exchange the name of File:Image noise in low light sample (Canon 100D) at ISO 200.jpg and File:Image noise in low light sample (Canon 100D) at ISO 6400.jpg? I can't because it's necessary to delete one of them. Thanks. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 11:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 15:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
INeverCry thank you. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 16:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Redundant edits

Minor issue, but it bothers me – is it possible to delete the last two edits at File:Katherine McNamara - November 2014 (cropped).jpg as redundant, so they don't show up? (Caching messed with me.) nyuszika7h (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

help wtih deleting picture

HI there I am looking for help on remoting an image, can anyone help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhluring (talk • contribs) 20:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Bhluring: Follow the directions at COM:DR#Starting requests to request deletion. Reventtalk 00:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Romania.svg

Looks like a little bit of an edit conflict happened here today. In any case, the version uploaded by Viuser was a raster image, so I don't believe there will be any objections for an Admin to RevDel the file back to my upload on the 11th? Fry1989 eh? 22:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 22:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Categorization issue, I'd appreciate if someone else work toward sorting this out

Could someone look in at User_talk:An_Errant_Knight#Coffeehouses_.2F_Caf.C3.A9s and (for what it's worth) User_talk:Jmabel#Coffeehouses_.2F_Caf.C3.A9s? We need to sort out what is the correct categorization here, and I doubt I can further usefully engage with this user at this time. I think I've stated my case, so moving forward I'll stay out of it unless someone has a direct question for me. - Jmabel ! talk 04:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Could someone ping me on the next step? I am not quote sure where and naming conventions are sorted here. There are two concepts, cafe and coffeehouse, which were merged. I think this is a mistake, and that they should be kept distinct. I would propose to move things back to status quo. Where does the conversation happen about this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Category:Coffeehouses in Washington (state) was emptied then deleted for being empty. There was no discussion about emptying it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
There was discussion: my expression of caution at User_talk:An_Errant_Knight#Coffeehouses_.2F_Caf.C3.A9s, which he chose to plow through and ignore. That is what I am asking some other admin to look at. - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Jmabel English Wikipedia has a en:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion process to host and archive these kinds of conversations. Is there no equivalent on Commons? Do these things just happen on anyone's userpage? I would advocate defaulting to the status quo then bringing the discussion to the right place to get comments on making a change. Is there an established process for this on Commons? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
We have COM:CFD. INeverCry 17:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes. COM:CFD is certainly where I would have started a discussion on this if I were the one proposing such a change, but the first I heard of it was Errant Knight making the changes, which showed up on my watchlist, so it was far too late for that. Hence, I tried to caution him on his talk page that what he was doing was not necessarily a good thing. Sorry, I thought that was clear. - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jmabel and An Errant Knight: I could create a discussion at CFD, with the understanding that the status quo is the default outcome. If a case is made to overturn the default, then things stay as they are. If change is not confirmed, then we return to status quo. Is there a more expedient and practical process? Errant Knight, do you want to discuss in this way? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Jmabel asked why the original move was made and was informed that it was to standardize the category with the rest of the United States and nearly all other countries. Jmabel then asked "Do you have any basis for your statement...?" and was provided with nearly 120 examples supporting the assertion verses a very small handful of examples to the contrary. However, the response by Jmabel to this evidence seemed to indicate either that Jmabel may not have read the response or chose to ignore the examples provided. When encouraged to read the entirety of the requested response, Jmabel opted to escalate the issue. Jmabel has also claimed that action proceeded after the discussion was initiated. However, the actions were completed prior to Jmabel commencing any discussion. Finally, while what exactly constitutes a "café" varies from U.S. state to U.S. state and country to county, it is highly doubtful that Washington state's version is sufficiently distinct to warrant an entirely different category name (one that it would not be found in same searches that would locate the VAST majority of the other similar entities). However, if that is preferable, the reinstate the prior status quo. An Errant Knight (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Given the nonexistence of Category:Coffeehouses and the tininess of Category:Coffee houses (I see no reason not to merge it with Category:Cafés), it seems rather exceptional to argue that we need a Washington coffeehouses category. Aside from legal distinctions, which really aren't applicable here, we shouldn't have name distinctions from one US state to another for things that are fundamentally the same. We tend to apply en:WP:ENGVAR here (the US subcategory for Category:Petrol stations is Category:Gas stations in the United States), but I've never seen a provision that says that we do such a thing on a subnational level, especially as Washington doesn't have its own dialect of English that's distinctively different from the dialects of other US states. Nyttend (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Change Name of Bearbeiten von „Category:Soups of Saxony

Please change name of "Bearbeiten von Category:Soups of Saxony" to "Category:Soups of Saxony" -- Benreis (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Benreis, the page Category:Soups of Saxony has been under that title since you created it. As far as I can see, nothing needs to be changed, since you originally did the right thing. Did I misread something that really is wrong? Nyttend (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
"Bearbeiten von Category:Soups of Saxony" was deleted by JuTa. So I created "Category:Soups of Saxony". Thank you for your efforts. -- Benreis (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

AbuseFilter for cross-wiki uploads

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T138273

As proposed at [6], we may want an AbuseFilter to accept only the best kind of cross-wiki uploads, so that the rest goes through the wizards at Commons:Upload or Special:UploadWizard (where users can get some directions on copyright).

Based on User:Matma Rex/December 2015 cross-wiki upload A/B test and a list of survived uploads, it seems that almost only JPEG uploads are really useful, and half of the survived uploads are above 1 Mpx. Under 1 Mpx, images get increasingly suspicious or out of scope (bad quality selfies, logos, scaled down duplicates and so on): some of these are in use, but the usage is incorrect. In the list with user age, the median is below one day. It would be better to get some information on the deleted images as well, for comparison.

The rule could be something like this (see format and variables on a recent upload): 

user_age < 3600*24*180 &
action == "upload" &
"Cross-wiki upload from" in summary &
!( file_width*file_height > 10**6 &
file_mime == "image/jpeg" )

--Nemo 16:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: Is there any way to implement a check for EXIF data? Copyvios IMO hardly ever have camera data on them. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't see such an option in AbuseFilter. You can file a feature request. Nemo 08:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Queries and data

To provide some data to confirm what Nemo guessed, I wrote and ran some queries. (Please view the file pages for full size and data tables.)

  • Cross-wiki uploads to Commons and their deletion rates by MIME type https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/10415
    •  
      Cross-wiki uploads to Commons and their deletion rates by MIME type.
    •  
      Cross-wiki uploads to Commons and their deletion rates (percentage) by MIME type.

    JPG images are by far the most commonly uploaded, but PNG and GIF are also noticeable on the chart. They have similar quality overall. Some less common image files also appear (SVG, TIF, XCF) and these uploads seem to have better quality. Non-image uploads are rare and mostly terrible.

  • Cross-wiki uploads to Commons and their deletion rates by MIME type and dimensions https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/10416
    •  
      Cross-wiki uploads to Commons by dimensions and their deletion rates, GIF files only.
    •  
      Cross-wiki uploads to Commons by dimensions and their deletion rates, JPG files only.
    •  
      Cross-wiki uploads to Commons by dimensions and their deletion rates, PNG files only.

    The X axis is size in megapixels, in bands of 0.2 Mpx (for files smaller than 10 Mpx), then 1 Mpx (for files smaller between 10 and 30 Mpx), then 10 Mpx (for files larger than 30 Mpx). The quality of JPG uploads indeed seems to increase from 60% for smaller ones to 80% for 3 Mpx. Other image file types don't seem to have this relation.

So the proposal seems like a pretty good idea. I would suggest allowing all other image file types too (but disallowing audio/video/PDF etc.), since they account for a far smaller number of uploads, and it would really suck if the outcome of this was for people to convert their PNG, SVG or TIF files to JPG to upload them. Matma Rex (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

To be precise, I propose the following filter:
action == "upload" &
user_age < 3600*24*180 &
"Cross-wiki upload from" in summary &
(
  !( file_mime like "image/*" ) |
  ( file_mime == "image/jpeg" & file_width*file_height < 10**6 )
)
Matma Rex (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

And one more, inspired by Grand-Duc's question about EXIF metadata.

  • Cross-wiki uploads to Commons and their deletion rates by metadata length https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/10417
    •  
      Cross-wiki uploads to Commons and their deletion rates by metadata length, images only.
    •  
      Cross-wiki uploads to Commons and their deletion rates (percentage) by metadata length, images only.

    This chart includes all image types and all metadata types, mostly JPG and EXIF (the chart looked almost the same when I tried removing everything else), but also PNG with whatever metadata PNGs include, and others. It doesn't include e.g. PDFs (which often have ridiculously large metadata).

    Metadata lengths under 100 can basically be considered no metadata at all (in the format MediaWiki records the metadata, you can only fit one or two fields in 100 bytes; this is usually either image rotation, or information about software which last touched the image).

    It's interesting how the quality drops a bit for very large metadata. I looked at a few of these files, and they mostly had either very long spammy keywords field, or binary garbage in some fields.

Note that it's currently impossible to write an AbuseFilter checking the metadata in any way, but this could probably be implemented, if desired. Matma Rex (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that, in light of these analyses above, a in-deep automated EXIF check should be kept in mind, but I hope that we could work with a simple size-based kind-of-boolean "is present or not" test just as queried for the statistic, first. @Matma Rex: do you mean at Phabricator thread T137841 that you want some input how to word error messages to a would-be uploaded when the filter got triggered? I do not currently have in any way enough technical knowledge to directly work out some code to this task. But I'll be happy to make textual wording suggestions and help translating some results to German and French... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Grand-Duc: (This got archived before I had time to reply…) Some error messages will no doubt need to be written and translated, and help would be appreciated. Unfortunately this is mostly boring technical work in getting various pieces of legacy code to talk to each other in a new way. Matma Rex (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Near-term solution

If I read correctly, so far everyone agrees the general idea is correct. Thanks to MatmaRex in particular for looking into the matter! I'll add coding blockers to the task created in Phabricator, but in the meanwhile let's look for a short-term solution. A filter like this, while crude, would supposedly work to forbid non-JPEG uploads, right? 

action == "edit" &
article_namespace == 6 &
"Cross-wiki upload from" in summary &
old_size == 0 &
user_age < 3600*24*180 &
! article_text irlike "jpe?g$"

--Nemo 12:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: Are you sure that action == "edit" works for files uploads? As fare i know it does not work because of a bug, but unable to find it on phabricator. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it doesn't :( Matma Rex (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Special:AbuseFilter/153 is working now :-). --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Good! Let's discuss about the information given to users at MediaWiki talk:Abusefilter-warning-cwuploads; when it's stable, we need to translate. Other things to do:
  • The filter log helps find many other copyvios: click the blue "contribs" links and you'll find that nearly all contributions from the same users are copyvios.
  • Block PNGs too. Most PNGs from cross-wiki upload are logos for the purposes of spam, or other copyrighted material.
--Nemo 07:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
In trying to understand what all those PNGs are, I made a list and a gallery (warning, 20k images). Nemo 10:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Downloaded them with a crude curl -L 'https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/201591852' | grep -Eo 'src="https://upload.wikimedia.org[^"]+"' | sed 's/src="//g' | sed 's/"$//g' | wget -i -, will look better. :) Nemo 21:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Expanding

I've been checking several hundreds of the recent filter matches where the affected editor had also uploaded something else. I found dozens users who uploaded (only/mostly) copyvios and almost no productive contributors at all. It seems the filter is working, so it's time to make it match more uploads. Nemo 10:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: I am currently checking User:Gunnex/Cross-wiki uploads 15.07.2016–18.07.2016 (a period with active abuse filter which I already checked randomly before and where I am trying now to do a systematically run through all files: I reached currently files beginning with "H", but probadly I need a recheck, because I lost my startpoint...)
  • 1st run on 22.07.2016: 1.845 rows. 1.581 living (355 pending deletion), 264 deleted
  • 2nd run on 24.07.2016: 1.866*** rows. 1.468 living (432 pending deletion), 398 deleted
***) apparently some double entries increases the number of rows...
= Quarry from 07:17, 24. Jul. 2016: since then: +/- more 40 files...
= reaching (counting also the pending deletion) already an overall bad ratio of 45,00 % (copyvios/PS/perm./source/etc.) for this period.
which confirms the several bad ratio indications I left on Phabricator, besides extremely high bad ratios from single wikis, like (ongoing check) User:Gunnex/Cross-wiki uploads from pt.wikipedia.org and further checks, accumulated in Category:User:Gunnex...
[Rhetorically:] It is worth to mention (again) that (since activation in 10.2015) I am NOT a fan of "cross-wiki-uploads" and that I would be happy seeing this WMF-stuff/social-media-thing deactivated ASAP? Probadly not...
Nemo: "Block PNGs too. Most PNGs from cross-wiki upload are logos for the purposes of spam, or other copyrighted material."   Support
Gunnex (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Quarry updated on 25.07.2016 (local time)
= "3rd run on 25.07.2016: 1.903** rows. 1,480 living (584 pending deletion), 423 deleted" = reaching 53,00 % bad ratio.
"I reached currently files beginning with "H"" --> Currently "L"...
Gunnex (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into the up to date numbers! I've not checked your math this time, but I did in the past and I trust it's ok. Can an administrator proceed to block all PNG uploads from the cross-wiki system? After !( file_mime like "image/*" ) |, add ( file_mime == "image/png" ) |. Nemo 06:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC) P.s.: The double entries are due to phabricator:T140522.

File:Medal presentation Smithsonian Code Talkers Bush (16925866277).jpg

Can someone correct the license for this certainly PD image and pass it? It should be a US Navy Museum photo. Thank You in advance, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done Nemo 11:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy please

Please delete Category:Birmingham Moor Street railway station before 2010, which I created in error. Apologies for the inconvenience. Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done, you can use {{Speedydelete}} next time. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Possible copyvio

Hi all--I think File:Powbtsvid.png, which is claimed to be the "own work" by Itsalexney, is a screen grab from a video ([7], or possibly some "making of" video). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I marked it as "no permission" as there are reasonable doubt about the "authorship" of the file but for now I can't find any video containing these scenes. — regards, Revi 17:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Images uploaded with false source credit

Hi. All of the images uploaded by User:Vanryoko have been uploaded with the source "own work". However, these have all been taken from the Logopedia website (some of which were recreated by me originally and uploaded to Logopedia). What is the proper course of action to be taken under these circumstances? Regards. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Mass deletion request (if files no longer suited for Commons) or relicense (if still suited).Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

TimedText:DOD 100048037 Fort Jackson BCT, Part 25 cadence.ogv.fi.srt

Isn't it an error? Don't you think that {{Delete}} should be visible? It is visible in preview mode, i.e. Edit→Show preview. --jdx Re: 04:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed appears to be a bug. The file is categorized in Category:Non-media deletion requests, but the category does not appear on the actual page (but does when editing). Reventtalk 04:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I've deleted it. The delete tags don't show up on these, but the pages do show up in the other speedy deletions category. INeverCry 06:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Limit for sending wikimails

Is this the right place to ask for the right to send 100 wikimails to winners of Germany's WLE contest? There is usually a limit after 10 mails or so. For today and tomorrow? Thanks in advance, --Blech (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You need account creator to do that and you need to ask one of the stewards I am afraid. Natuur12 (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I have sent 10 mails yesterday and it is still not possible to send the 11th one... --Blech (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Priscilla Horton (Mrs. German Reed) as Ariel - Original.jpg

Could someone please delete the version of 10:12, to avoid including any website elements? Wanted to use the lossless crop tool. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done, although I'm not really sure I could see any "website elements". Storkk (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

MassMessage WLE-GR

Please someone send a MassMessage with this content to the talk pages of these users. It is a notification to the participants of the Greek part of the Wiki Loves Earth about the end of first round of the selection process and asking them to complete a survey. Thank you. --Geraki TLG 06:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done send the message. Natuur12 (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

This picture should be suppressed because it was pulled off of another website.

==[[:File:Pictureofmelastweekjuly.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by MechQuester (talk • contribs) 00:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

In any case should be deleted as out of scope, it's a personal photo of a non-notable individual. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pictureofmelastweekjuly.jpg started. --GRuban (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  Done Deleted per COM:PRP. INeverCry 01:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Comunicación con la Orden Mercedaria

Respetados hermanos, me ha sido casi imposible comunicarme con alguien de la Orden Mercedaria acá en Chile, no me responden los correos como tampoco me han entregado una respuesta a una solicitud muy personal,quisiera por favor las direcciones de correo de la Orden de la Merceded en Roma y Barcelona,,con agradecimientos desde el corazón,atte.José Francisco Castañón Zúñiga. Profesor de Educación Física. — Preceding unsigned comment added by José Francisco Castañón Zúñiga (talk • contribs) 20:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Google translation: Dear brothers, I found it almost impossible to communicate with someone from the Mercedaria Order here in Chile, do not respond emails nor have given me an answer to a very personal request, I would please e-mail of the Order of the Merceded in Rome and Barcelona,, with thanks from the heart, atte.José Castanon Francisco Zuniga. Professor of Physical Education.
I guess we don't have any active Spanish-speaking administrators. In any case, this doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with the Wikimedia Commons media repository. It will probably be a lot easier to find a way to communicate with them on their web site rather than on a completely unrelated site. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Please edit catalot.js

Could an administrator please move line 1010 in MediaWiki:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js below line 994 (and re-indent) per this discussion? --Sebari (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Srittau: Can you please post the fixed code in a sandbox or pastbin so that i can copy&paste it. Thanks. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: [8] Thanks! --Sebari (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Own user Template:Information

I mean this is not desired {{User: Sven/Information}}⁉ (seems < 100 inclusions) Should we not replace them⁉ (Sven (talk · contribs)) ↔ User: Perhelion 14:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong? It transcludes {{Information}}, so everything should work fine. Is there a specific technical problem that you've observed with it? Nyttend (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

About Flickr Photos

I have uploaded many photos from Flickr but it is said as copyright file. Why???Sunio126 (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

You can't grab a non-free file from the Internet, upload it to your own Flickr account under a fake free license, and then transfer it here. That's called license laundering and will get you blocked. But given that you're a pretty obvious sockpuppet of User:Jhony jhony ha ji, you already know that. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  Done Uploads deleted, sock blocked. INeverCry 19:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Dead CFDs

Hi there, I think after 2 – 4 years Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/05/Categories of victims, fatalities, deaths + Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/06/Category:Murder + Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/09/Category:Shooting of Michael Brown could be closed now and the CFD-template removed from all the categories. --SI 14:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Leong Mun Yee during the 2010 Commonwealth Games.jpg & File:Pandelela Rinong during the 2010 Commonwealth Games.jpg

Dear Admins,

These 2 images come from a blacklisted flickr account. That was the message I got when I almost passed them. But are these images clearly copyright violations. Can someone confirm this? From the metadata, they appear to be Government of India photos but could they now be PD? The second image is notable for showing a 2012 OlympicGames medal winner. If they are copyvios, they are candidates for speedy deletions. If not, the DR I launched on Pandelela should be closed quickly as keep as I have no objections to keeping the image. The issue is the source account has 23,000 images and claims to be a resource of free images. I have to sign off now as its midnight here in Canada. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done Both copyvios deleted. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Bendale_map.png

Someone with permissions please take a look. I can't seem to upload a new version. I've repeatedly tried and all I get are intermediate versions. Thanks! Alaney2k (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Alaney2k: Your upload log show many versions or are they something else ? Mlpearc (open channel) 15:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I tried to upload several times, but the page showed the first map as the current. I tried clearing the cache, reloading the page, etc. Several hours later it appears that my update did take hold. So yes, only one version, but uploaded several times. I tried updating the file date/time on the drive, different text. I have uploaded many files and uploaded lots of files to the commons and not had this problem before. I think it was some sort of hiccup. So, anyway, it's a bit of a mess, and I can't clean it up myself, so I've asked for help. I think only the very latest and the first need to be present there. Just odd. Alaney2k (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
@Alaney2k: I'm not sure on the SOP here but, many of those versions should be deleted. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  Done I've done a history clean. INeverCry 01:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanx :) Mlpearc (open channel) 01:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
@Alaney2k: See my comment here. It sounds like the same issue. Reventtalk 04:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Might be worth mentioning this here.... when this issue occurs, or when you suspect it is happening, here is a 'workaround'. When you load a thumbnail of an image, via the links under the image on the file page, you load a file with a name 'prefixed' with the size of the thumbnail... (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Corfu_venetian_quarter_bgiu.jpg/1280px-Corfu_venetian_quarter_bgiu.jpg as a random one). If you change the "1280px" to some random 'unusual' size, this will force the servers to generate a new thumbnail at the requested size, and it will always be of the 'current' version of the file, since there will be no cached copies at that size. Reventtalk 04:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! That's pretty useful. I will keep that in mind. Alaney2k (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Provinces of Italy

Someone is translating sub-categories for Italian. Is this correct? Wieralee (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Wieralee: The policy is that category names should generally be in English, unless they are either proper names, biological taxa, or the non-English name is what is commonly used in the English language. Since we cannot localize category names, to do otherwise invites insanity. Imagine "People of France" in a couple of hundred different languages, with wars about what language to use for countries where more than one is common. Please, no. Reventtalk 12:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Revent: I know the principles, but I was wondering if there was a special discussion/agreement about this categories. They were hanging on User:RussBot/category redirect log for many days -- and nobody react. I can't roll back such a movement by myself, an admin is needed. Wieralee (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not clear to me what is being discussed here: can you please make examples? I only found [9]. FYI, a large mess is going to be caused by the fact that all the provinces where renamed in the course of the last couple years. Some are now called "città metropolitana", some "area vasta", some in other ways; it's unlikely that an English translation exists of all those weird terms invented by politicians. I was hoping we could keep the old names for all categories, but I've not seen a discussion on the matter. Nemo 11:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Disabling of some functions for new users

Some vandals, eg. this one, abuse "revert" link on file description pages, eg. File:Flag of Toledo, Ohio.svg or File:Flag of Hualien County.svg. Other, less popular form of vandalism is requesting image rotation, sometimes with a rubbish value such as 123 degrees. Perhaps its time to consider disabling these functions for new users on files other than their own? Is it technically possible? --jdx Re: 12:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It is possible to revert even whiteout a revert link, so this wouldn't help. Likely it will make the situation worser because users don't gat a notification that the edit has been reverted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio pics

Many, though not all, of the uploads by NIHAL JABIN are copyvios from wallpaper websites. As not all are copyvios, they'll need to be checked individually. I've started deleting (oldest first), but there's quite a lot, and "many hands make light work" . . . ;-) Thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Been doing a bit more checking - the ones I thought were genuinely his are on a google site with his watermark on, but discovered these are also stolen from elsewhere. So I'm going to delete the whole lot. - MPF (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Yep, that's exactly what I was finding, older versions on various websites credited to other names. Also discovered that User talk:NIHAL JABIN is a sockpuppet of User talk:NIHALjb - MPF (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion fails

I'm still getting a significant number of these:

"mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/c/c1/Icardi.PNG"

Not so bad for scope deletions, but I've had quite a few fails trying to delete copyvios. I know the bug report's been open since April; anyone know if progress is in sight on this? INeverCry 18:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

This is likely phab:T132921. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: Any idea why that's closed as resolved? This is still happening on a pretty regular basis. I wouldn't call these errors rare. I get at least 20 per week closing the daily DRs. INeverCry 01:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry: There is also phab:T141704 about getting the same type of error when trying to undelete. Reventtalk 05:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm surprised I haven't had any of those happen to me. At least that task isn't closed as resolved... INeverCry 05:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Old versions

Could an Admin clear out the old versions on this file, File:Map of Ukraine political simple Oblast Transkarpatien. (sorry if this is the incorrect venue) Thank you, Mlpearc (open channel) 23:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

This is right venue. But why the old versions should be deleted? The file has been stable more than 2 years. Taivo (talk) 07:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
@Taivo: It has been done before and I assumed it was S.O.P. Mlpearc (open channel) 13:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
No, please answer: why the old versions should be deleted? I do not find a good answer. And which old versions should be deleted? All? Why? Taivo (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
You're the Admin, shouldn't you know ? @INeverCry: Why did you clean out those file versions ? Mlpearc (open channel) 13:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
We shouldn't delete old version (exempt if there are legal reasons such as copyvios or privacy issues), it does not saving disc space and it is better to keep it for transparency. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: This is fine, that is why I asked for clarification as to whats normally done Mlpearc (open channel) 14:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The problem described here can be solved by purging the page or waiting a while. But if a file has been re-uploaded x-times accidentally i see no problem with deleting the old ones. :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I sometimes do history cleans to avoid confusion for people who want to update files, or who want to clearly see the progression of a flag or COA, or a file where some fixes or cropping have been done, in case an update or change was incorrect (sometimes two or more editors will disagree about a change and revert back and forth, leaving a mess).

    A sock or vandal who does numerous overwrites on a file can make things confusing for productive editors. We sometimes have sockmasters who use numerous socks to attack the same file, leading sometimes to 20 or more overwrites, which is a mess. Hiding the revisions with a history clean gets rid of needless confusion, and also denies socks/vandals attention and can help in dissuading them from further overwrites when they see that they're wasting their time and aren't getting to have their handiwork kept visible like they want. Anything that helps aid productive editing and/or dissuades sock/vandal activity is a good tool for admins, but obviously has to be used carefully and intelligently.

    Aside from images, I often use history cleaning to combat the stalking and vandalism of LTA sockmasters like Wikinger. He likes to use edit summaries to indicate who he is and to taunt or just be disruptive. A quick history clean can erase his activity and deny him the attention that he obviously wants badly. INeverCry 19:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

As Steinsplitter indicates above, accidental overwrites are another issue that history cleaning can fix quickly and easily. INeverCry 19:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with INeverCry, specifically "Hiding the revisions with a history clean gets rid of needless confusion, and also denies socks/vandals attention and can help in dissuading them from further overwrites when they see that they're wasting their time and aren't getting to have their handiwork kept visible like they want". Mlpearc (open channel) 01:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Tradehouse noorsportlase stipendium 2015.jpg

Request deletion of the file's older version because of privacy reasons, which consist of signatures, and (initial) terms and conditions on paper, as these were still somewhat discernible. I'd uploaded a newer version, where these items were pixelised. -Mardus /talk 22:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 23:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

A response to a request

If these files are not free, please delete this page and sub-pages --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Druss Smith copyright.jpeg

It's time to delete this crap. --jdx Re: 01:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druss_Smith - sheesh Reventtalk 02:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Spam links in file descriptions.

Recently I have noticed a new (to me) form of spam – new users "smuggle" spam links into "description" field of {{Information}}. Some of them upload copyrighted images (screenshots of web pages), while others upload perfectly valid (usually {{PD-USGov}}) photos from Flickr. One such user uploads up to 3 files. Is it possible to create an Abusefilter's rule in order to reject (or at least mark) files with external links in description? Here is the list of spammers that have been noticed by me:

--jdx Re: 08:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

This would cause a substantial number of false-positives, so it isn't a good idea. Logging only file uploads with external links would crate likely hundreds of thousands of abusefilter logs. Singe spam links can be blacklisted via MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I would say that external links in the "description" field are not so common. They are common in the "source" field. --jdx Re: 08:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
There are quite often links in the description as well. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Elcobbola, Herbythyme, and I dealt with a spam service from India a while back that uploaded images and then spammed the description with links for Canadian and US moving companies, essay-writing services, and some flower shops, to get by filter #85. Quite a few of the above accounts are likely spambots. Too bad I'm not CU anymore, or I could see how many of these are on proxy IPs/ranges/leaky webhosts. INeverCry 02:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
It would be possible to extend filter 85 to the file namespace. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: It wouldn't interfere with legitimate source or permission external links, or external links in descriptions that describe complicated diagrams, maps, etc? If not, it might be worth doing. A large number of spammers upload spammy images and use the description to link their sites and tell how great their product/service is. I wonder if they'd start hitting the file talkpages? These services, spammers, and XRumer operators are getting paid good money, so they'll get real creative to protect their profits. INeverCry 19:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Git icon.svg

Could an admin split this file (and its history) and save the older version as Git icon 2007.svg? --jdx Re: 10:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Fiston Mwanza Mujila - 2015 (2).jpg

Hello. FlickreviewR 2 seems to be ignoring this file and is not reviewing it. I don't understand what is blocking the bot. Thank you for your help. --Titlutin (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The issue was that the original full size version of the file hadn't been uploaded. I've overwritten the file with the full size original. The review bot should pass it without any problem now. INeverCry 02:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thank you.--Titlutin (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Looks like FlickreviewR 2 has kicked it out for human review. Maybe it was fooled by the original smaller upload size. I've gone ahead and passed the review myself by hand. INeverCry 02:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

MassMessage

Hi, I'd like to make use of the Special:MassMessage for a thank you note for participation in WLE. Here are the list of recepients for the message. Cheers --Oscar_. (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Oscar .: Please change the template, i have to add a signature. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  Done I was able to fix it myself (a header and a timestamp is always needed, otherwise archivebots will have problems with archiving). --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your trouble! Cheers, --Oscar_. (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Flag Vandal Szm360 (talk · contribs)

I wanna let everyone know that the sockmaster 020730szm is extremely persistent in making blatantly hoax flags and have been uploading them here. I wanted to report that I'll be mostly nominating his work for deletion. His socks accounts are consistent. They contain the letters "Szm" and numerals. For example, the most current vandal is Szm360. Please just block and request a global lock since this involves cross wiki vandalism. Thank you. MechQuester (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done The user is banned, all uploads deleted. Taivo (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Files by Malkawi99

Hello.Please check these files.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Checked! Copyrighted images speedily deleted, some are kept and others are tagged appropriately. The images kept are not copyvios, they are images from ar.wiki. Thanks you. With kind regards. Wikicology (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
How does the fact that some images have also been uploaded to ar.wiki demonstrate that they have a compatible Commons license? Or am I misunderstanding, and they have all been checked independently? Begoon - talk 02:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Begoon, I mean there is no evidence of copyvios in the images kept and they have all been checked independently of ar.wiki (unless I'm missing something). I'll also like to point out that, using images in one or more Wikimedia projects does not mean they are copyright-free. For example, fair use images are acceptable on the English Wikipedika but are forbidden on Wikimedia Common. Of course, you are welcome to review the images again. Thank you. Wikicology (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, they all seem to say Source:own work, Author:Malkawi99, as did all of the files in question. If you're comfortable that this is true for the ones you couldn't find specific online evidence, while it was untrue for the others, and you don't feel the latter casts substantial doubt on the former, I'll AGF, since you have spent more time on it than I have. I might have tagged them as {{npd}}, under the circumstances, but you may be right, and that may be overly cautious. Begoon - talk 08:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Rechecked --> User talk:Malkawi99 (file cropper, exif manipulator, Panoramio/Google Maps grabber) + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Malkawi99 (photoshopper, watermark remover, exif manipulator, Facebook grabber).
@Wikicology: "The images kept are not copyvios, they are images from ar.wiki." Which ones? (can't retrieve any local arwiki files which match the Commons uploads). Btw... check (unrelated) user's uploads at local arwiki = all grabbed from Internet (no source etc. + no eventual Fair use rationale, just... copy&paste). Gunnex (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@Wikicology: The Arabic Wikipedia has, unfortunately, a long history of doing a poor job of self-policing for copyright violations, many of which eventually end up transferred here and then deleted. I'm not commenting about the files at hand, just that we should not assume that files from there are acceptable just because of where they came from. Reventtalk 06:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Early DR closure

Just as a heads up, in case anyone objects. I closed Commons:Deletion requests/Files created by Shaan Lollywood early, and deleted all the files. I'd previously blocked the uploader, but it appears to have been insufficient.

In case it's not apparent why I did so, the uploader was pretty clearly the sock of an account globally locked for cross-wiki abuse, but too stale for CU. This account had uploaded over a hundred 'fake' flags, including identical copies of previously deleted ones, and added them to articles on over 40 projects, within less than a day of account creation. After being blocked here, the cross-wiki vandalism continued under at least one IP.
I think it was urgent to go ahead and nuke these because of the nature of the vandalism... flags from (or imaginary flags based on the emblems of) nationalist or separatist movements and political parties being described as the official flags of political entities, and added (apparently) to the article of every project that had an article about that political entity.
This wasn't the typical flag or CoA 'authenticity' argument, and most that I looked at were probably copyvios anyhow (since not real). Reventtalk 06:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like you took care of business. This isn't the guy in the section above is it? He's a fake flag obsessive too. INeverCry 06:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry: I wondered myself, at first, but different 'behavior'... this guy uses pngs (the other uses svgs), and seems to be aimed at just creating random chaos by stoking up as many nationalist arguments as possible... targets as wide as Hawaii, Goa, and the muslim parts of far western China. Reventtalk 06:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, at least one can't function without the Szm...   INeverCry 07:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested mass deletion.

For this [user]. This person created numerous empty categories, almost all of which are useless.


MechQuester (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_58&oldid=204194503"