Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 65

< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Skrills.jpg

I think this file is not "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International". — vsco 15:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Vsco: Done. Please use {{Copyvio}} next time. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

HotCat is broken

Recent changes to MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js broke HotCat entirely for me; details here: MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-HotCat.js#ESLint_changes_broke_HotCat_entirely_for_me. User:ESanders (WMF) (who made the changes) has not noticed my messages yet, and I must assume I'm not the only person affected. Could someone please revert his changes until he returns to fix them, so that HotCat is functional again? Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This has been reverted by Matma Rex. I, too, was wondering about the outage but it's working again. De728631 (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Numerous renames passed with improper basis/reason

Hi I would need help!

Recently, i have been cleaning up and fixing up articles and images within the english wikipedia as well as the commons for several Metro Manila Articles. It has come to my attention that this specific image [1] was renamed several times without any proper justification from the 5 naming criteria reasons. I also looked at both requests if they asked the permission of the original uploader to no avail. The last rename was even weird as it was renamed citing Criteria number 5 and was moved with the justification of reverting the rename done by a blocked user which clearly was not the case as it proceeded with a different name. In light of this, I would like to ask assistance on what to do as based on my understanding, a rename must not be done if the original name would suffice not unless at the discretion of the original uploader and should a revert be requested it must be under the prior acceptable name which in this case is the original name set by the uploader.

Thanks! Korean Rail Fan (talk) 09:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Kaylinn Rosati.jpg

Please provide me with a copy of this deleted file. My rationale is:

  • I am the original uploder of the file
  • The file is not a copyright violation
  • I've since lost the file from my device where I originally uploaded it from
  • I need the file for something not related in any way to the Wikimedia Foundation or its projects

Thank you. I Love Bridges 2 (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done You got a mail with a link to download. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The link is dysfunctional and I can't open it. At first it said that Firefox Send was incompatible with Safari and that I needed to download Firefox. However, even after downloading Firefox and attempting to open the link in Firefox, it still gives me the same error. Can't you just send the file as an email attachment to me? I Love Bridges 2 (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't have your eMail (just WikiMail), try https://www.pic-upload.de/view-33674984/index.jpg.html --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: That link works for me, but I can't unsee those ads plastered onto the image.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

mehrfache Verschieberestlöschung

Ich mag nicht 10 SD-Anträge in die Überbleibsel von verschobenen Dateien malen und bitte daher um Löschung der Verschiebereste namens
File:Särichen Denkmal WK I und WK II (01).jpg ... File:Särichen Denkmal WK I und WK II (10).jpg und
danke _sehr_ dafür! --Tommes 21:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done --Didym (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  --Tommes 08:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Misaki_GY

I strongly believe all of these are {{Copyvio}}s. Suzukaze-c (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done Files tagged, user warned. Yann (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

File:150505 『여기가 로도스다 여기서뛰어라!』샤메회 후기 02.jpg

Please delete the differing version. Overwritten file. Possible copyvio. GermanJoe (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done. Taivo (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Redirect needs to be deleted.

Please delete the redirect File:Flag of Mauritania.svg, so that it can be used for the new flag following the referendum. Fry1989 eh? 17:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done Nick (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but the redirect needs to be completely deleted so that we can move the new flag to "Flag of Mauritania". Fry1989 eh? 18:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@Fry1989: The redirect was completely deleted, Gumruch has recreated the redirect following my deletion, clearly not bothering to read any of the log entries I left. Nick (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Derp...Gumruch, can you please undo that? Fry1989 eh? 18:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Gumruch does not appear active at the moment. Can another admin do this? We need to have the new flag under the name "Flag of Mauritania". Fry1989 eh? 22:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  Done and moved by Jon Harald Søby. Taivo (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Fry1989 eh? 16:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Stela Shebitqo Met.jpg

Just a comment. I don't know why but the Met Museum of NY licensed this image on a cc-zero license so I passed it. I checked the source twice and the metadata also says the same. If I did something wrong, tell me here. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: Seems ok, see metmuseum (blog) :-). --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice to contributors of WLE Germany's Top 100 photographies

Dear admins,

please send the following short notices to < 100 user pages:

Thanks in advance, --Blech (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Vielen Dank. --Blech (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Photo of Jason Skok.jpg

Not uploaded or taken by me. Rich Farmbrough, 19:48 10 August 2017 (GMT).

According to the file history, this file actually was uploaded using your account User:Rich Farmbrough. If you're sure that you haven't uploaded that image, it would appear that your account is compromised, your password was hacked or something like that? Are there any other edits by this account that aren't yours? Or may there be an issue with the Upload Wizard attributing uploads to the wrong account? Of course we can delete "your" upload but maybe it should remain there a little bit longer in case there's a technical problem to solve. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Naturally I have changed my password. However it is possible that there may be some kind of mis-attribution error. The name Jason Skok is associated with a 2015 hack in Nigeria - whether there is any relationship to this is difficult to tell. Rich Farmbrough, 21:57 10 August 2017 (GMT).
If there are no reports or evidence of other similar errors with UploadWizard (none that I have seen), I think it would be more reasonable to assume there was an issue with your account and who has access to it. seb26 (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Rich, could you please implement two-factor authentication if you have not already? This will remove doubt that all future actions by your account are yours. As there has never been discussion of a mis-attribution bug, I agree that this indicates your account was compromised.
As a general recommendation, 2FA should be more strongly encouraged for all active administrators and all "power" users, such as those who would not raise an eyebrow at making 10,000 edits as part of volunteer projects. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Admin sockpuppetry

Discussion is located at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Daphne Lantier has been determined to be a sock of INeverCry. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

please see This. ping Josve05a — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.143.180 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 11 August 2017‎ (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Main Page is deleted

Main Page is deleted. Please restore immediately.--Praveen:talk 04:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

WTF --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
So many pages are deleted. Block rogue admin!--Praveen:talk 04:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Praveenp:   Done, but I think we should have Talk:Main Page back.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
And please restore MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js. kennethaw88 • talk 05:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I've restored both Talk:Main Page and MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js. —RP88 (talk) 05:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Also please restore File:Secretary Clinton With Portuguese Foreign Minister Luis Amado at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, DC June 5, 2009 01.jpg and File:Secretary Clinton With Portuguese Foreign Minister Luis Amado at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, DC June 5, 2009 02.jpg. It is also possible that this rogue administrator has deleted more files. Tm (talk) 05:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
And also, possibly File:Katherine Maher - Wikimedia CCO - May 2014 24.jpg, deleted a few days ago, maybe with reason, maybe not, but it was in my opinion a good file. Tm (talk) 05:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Tm and others, please refer to the primary discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Daphne Lantier has been determined to be a sock of INeverCry, where the more general action and corrective actions are being worked out. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. These last developments are concerning, giving that this administrator was a good one. Tm (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Template for image licensing has outdated links and could use a fix

The licensing template for PD-USGov-Military-Army-USAIOH has outdated links to the relevant laws. Clicking on them just gets a 404. For an example, see the "Licensing" section under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:94th_Fighter_Squadron.png

The current link to Cornell's LII for 18 USC 704 is:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/704

Edited to add: actually, it doesn't look like this section of USC is even relevant for that issue -- licensing a logo -- the cited law deals with "decorations or medals" (Purple Hearts, Medal of Honors), not with logos. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 111.80.97.61 (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about the other one. The server doesn't even exist any more. You could probably link to Cornell LII for that one as well, since they have at least some CFRs on their site.

Edit two: Cornell's link for that one is https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/32/part-507 and it looks like it actually might be relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 111.80.97.61 (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Cheers,

111.80.97.61 08:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Daddy's Lap.jpg

Very likely a copyright violation (to say nothing of the name of the file). ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@DanielTom: please use {{Copyvio}} next time. Storkk (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Carl Anderson.jpg

I don't know whether to request undeletion of File:Carl Anderson.jpg. I found out about Daphne Lautier, who closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carl Anderson.jpg and deleted the file. Would the outcome change in any way? --George Ho (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I am 95 percent certain that this particular photo was published on the front page of the Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet on November 13, 1936, when the laureates were announced. Anderson arrived in Sweden a few days before the prize ceremony took place on December 10. It seem unlikely that the photo was taken anywhere else than in the US. Thuresson (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
As the photographer remains unknown and it appears that research will never reveal a name despite being used in newspapers in 1936, {{PD-US-not renewed}} plus {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} may be appropriate. For this reason an undeletion request may be worth trying. --Fæ (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Lower Jerry Run Natural Area (17) (18126853568).jpg

Can someone with experience deal with this image? The flickr account owner says on the flickr source says that he licenses the image as cc0 but the flickr license is pd-mark. Unfortunately, I don't have time to flickrmail the account owner but he seems to understand licenses. His flickr profile also gives a clear statement about his images (cc0) although he currently licenses his images as cc-by 2.0 generic...which is also free. I think the flickr account owner accidentally mistook pd-mark as cc0 but perhaps his statement on copyright should be copied somewhere...if this image is passed without a license change. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

License descriptions on flickr link to Creative Commons, and the description of CC0 says it is a public domain dedication. I wpuld concur that this discrepency is immaterial and that the photographer clearly intended the image to be available without restriction. Dankarl (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Script/template problems

Why templates are not getting properly displayed? Like here: User talk:Keres 40? Would be grateful for any help. Masur (talk) 06:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Masur: AFAIR maximum number of templates on the page has been exceeded. @Steinsplitter might know more on this topic. --jdx Re: 06:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The template include size is exceeded, the takpage should be archived. Not possible to work around. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Post‐expand include size: 2097152/2097152 bytes --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Block of Daphne Lantier

Hi, the block of Daphne Lantier is about to expire 18 August (next Friday). I propose that for now we let it expire that day. In case of new problems, a new block can be applied easily. Although some users voiced the opinion that they should be indef blocked, I see no concensus for such a block at this moment and I see no urgent reason to increase the block length. Any thoughts? Jcb (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

They need to be indefinitely blocked and the person sat at the computer needs to take home the message that they are banned from using Commons with any account. I can't believe you're even contemplating allowing INC (as Daphne Lantier) to return to editing next week, it's the most absurd nonsense I've ever seen you post Jcb, and you've posted some utter crap over the years. Nick (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
One of the reasons to start a topic here a few days before, is to prevent that hot-headed admins do things without community support on such a delicate case. Thanks for demonstrating that this could indeed have been an issue. Jcb (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
If you had read the de-RfA, you would know many people have asked for an indefinite block, and that several (myself included) believe a WMF global ban is in order/should be considered. I'm awaiting a comment from Jalexander-WMF about whether the WMF will officially sanction INC/Daphne (hopefully we will hear later this week, after he and other WMF staff return from Wikimania and can investigate this case). We do know, however, that this is a case beyond Commons and has other dimensions, such as identifying to WMF as a different person in order to gain (short lived, self relinquished) access to the OTRS system. The deception and contempt for our community is accompanied by enormous breach of trust and enormous lapses in judgement which makes me question how we can trust INC/Daphne to do anything ever again, from licence reviews to basic categorisation. I also hate that people think this sort of deception is remotely acceptable and that we're making it OK to sock, pass RfA (with abusive sockpuppetry in the self nomination) and be found out with no long term sanctions. It's absurd, utterly absurd. Nick (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to get involved in this affair more than the necessary as I'm sad and disappointed about all this issue, as everybody is. That said, I don't think the de-RfA is a good place to discuss an hypotetical ban to an editor. Of course there are several calls for it and that should be the reason for starting a discussion with the only scope of discussing whether DL/INC should be blocked from commons and for how long. Nothing prevents the commons community from discussing this on our own, and the m:WMF Global Ban Policy (since Nick has requested one) explicitly says that WMF-imposed restrictions are supplementary and ain't meant to replace community measures. Having said that, while the de-RfA isn't the proper place to discuss a ban IMHO, it shows that a large number of editors have called for having the editor banned from the site and therefore would feel unease letting that block expire. My advice is to open a discussion at AN/U now to discuss only if INC/DL should face further editting restrictions and don't let the block expire for now. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 21:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: Here you have it: COM:AN/U#Community_ban_of_Daphne_Lantier_.2F_INeverCry.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
For the record, closed that one because we don't handle stuff like this via a kangaroo vote. Natuur12 (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The user has chosen to continue the abuse with User:Herbert Delvig, so that an indefinite block is inevitable now. I have changed the block settings accordingly. Jcb (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

  Comment I suggest to close this. No further admin action necessary. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Some weird problem

I need some back-end check about issue. It just me or my image in File:Sauer Bär Pistol 01.jpg disappear by whatever reason. Thank you for checking.Tnt1984 (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Your uploaded image appears fine to me (and from the file history, at least one other volunteer). If you are still seeing a problem, you might try clearing your web browser's cache. —RP88 (talk) 06:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I could see the image without any problem. Could your problem eventually result from a content-filter at your internet-provider? The first word of the swedish description could in my language (de) possibly be rated as NSFW. --Túrelio (talk) 06:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I think it must have issues in my system because some other images that I upload for year still not show up. But since if it appears fine to other I think it fine to me. Thank you very much for your time.Tnt1984 (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
For a more technical check, the url https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Sauer_B%C3%A4r_Pistol_01.jpg has the same md5 checksum (08555a0fdb5ed7c9982ee3575a7c679e) across upload.mw.o load balancers across all 4 wikimedia datacenters (upload-lb.{ulsfo,eqiad,codfw,esams}.wikimedia.org) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

In my systerm it show up like this.Tnt1984 (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Contributions of Creeperbrine360

Please have a look at Creeperbrine360's uploads. In all cases s/he states 'own work', but I very much doubt that. Most of them are screenshots from TV programs or images found elsewhere. Richard 16:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

All either deleted or tagged for deletion. Storkk (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Richard 06:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy notifications

When my files are put up for speedy deletion, I appear to get no notification. This is especially troubling when the speedy rationale does not comply with the speedy criteria policy.

I cannot see where this has been mentioned in current policy. Are there reasons why it would not be desirable for uploaders to be automatically notified that their uploads have been flagged for speedy deletion?

As an example, the high quality portrait File:Toronto, Canada (Unsplash gKbrJTDV6os).jpg was put up for speedy today on non-criteria grounds, 16 minutes after it was uploaded, and I only noticed this fact when going through the contributions of the template user after seeing a couple of other speedies. I had no notification, and the file was not on my watchlist.

Raising here rather than the VP, as it is only those with sysop rights that can make the final call on whether to comply with speedy criteria policy or not. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of missing something and sounding a little slow, I'll state the obvious: you only get a notification if the user places it on your talk page. This happens automatically when someone uses AjaxQuickDelete, but in this case Secondarywaltz appears to have tagged it manually and failed to notify you. I've left a message on their talk page. Storkk (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
What's missing is whether speedy notifications are required by policy. Are they? --Fæ (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah, spotted where this is mentioned. It's at COM:SD, end of first paragraph. --Fæ (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
No reason for speedy deletion, but it should be renamed. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2017-08#File:Jaodori_of_Nagasaki_Kunchi.jpg

It seems User:Daphne_Lantier single-handedly restored it not considering concerns of User:Seb26 and User:Jeff_G.. Can the case be re-opened and reconsidered? Re-opening deletion request or undeletion request, I don't know. --202.214.231.205 11:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, You can reopen the deletion request. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I still don't know how. Can someone do it for me? I think we need to find an answer to utilitarian purpose or artistic purpose. --163.49.203.127 07:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I've seen the photo now. My concern was that I couldn't see it, not that the file should be deleted. Claiming otherwise is disingenuous. I think DL/INC made the right call, there is no sculpture depicted, it is a multi-person dragon costume which can be photographed under COM:UA. Your continued harassment of uploader Marine-Blue is duly noted.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
If "sculpture" is stone art only, I was wrong, sorry. It was my English error, not my intention to misrepresent. Maybe I should use "3-dimensional art". The problem is utilitarian purpose or artistic purpose. --07:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

licence problems

Duberz (talk · contribs) is using

from http://gehreslaw.com/

from https://www.intelligentoffice.com/en-ca/california/san-diego-la-jolla/

from google maps and some more as Own work --Bigbossfarin (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done All nominated for deletion, thanks! If you find more, please consider nominating them yourself. It's quite easy to do if you enable the "VisualFileChange" gadget (See Gadgets->Maintenance tools) in your preferences. Storkk (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
By default you find on the left side of every file description page under Tools section a “Nominate for deletion” entry or its translated version. — Speravir – 23:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Archives

Latest contributions of Krakovsky are documents from state archive, censuses at most. The user photographed by himself probably, but still there is no archive acknowledgement and proper license. --Anntinomy (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Backlog of abuse filter issues

Please help with Commons talk:Abuse filter backlog if you can, and archive answered/resolved issues. It's like a graveyard for issues sometimes, including one of mine reported nearly four months ago. Consider notifying Commons:Village pump too. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 07:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Early closure of regular DRs

It has come to my attention that "in times of low backlogs the majority of regular DRs is being closed in less than 168 hours, by many different admins. Jcb (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)"[2]. This practice is in direct violation of our policy that DRs that are not about obvious copyvios may be closed only "after seven days" as per COM:D#Closure, and it undermines users' confidence in those admins' abilities to adhere to policy, as they promised to do in their RFAs.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if you are aware, but not a single DR filed at 3 June remained open for the full 168 hours. Several different admins were involved in the closures. For about the past five months, over 90% of the regular DRs have been closed in less than 168 hours, by many different admins. For at least the past decade is has not been uncommon to close DRs in less than 168 hours. Only e.g. 'no permission since' taggings have always remained open for at least 168 hours. For regular DRs the time of low backlog is coming to an end though, because I am afraid the 500-700 daily actions of INC/DL will not be compensated completely. Jcb (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@P199, Davey2010, Blackcat, MichaelMaggs, and Srittau: previously discussed this at Commons_talk:Deletion_requests#Closing_deletion_nominations_early. Storkk (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, I think "after 7 days" means either after 7×24=168 hours, or to make it easier, "after midnight on the 8th day", and don't really see the point of zapping them a few hours (or days) early. I suggest moving *{{#ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/{{#time:Y/m/d|-7 days}}|[[Commons:Deletion requests/{{#time:Y/m/d|-7 days}}]]|}} from the bottom of COM:DR#Latest requests to be closed to the top of COM:DR#Most recent deletion requests. Storkk (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Storkk: That is an excellent suggestion. It would appear to restrict robo-closure to start at the beginning of day 8 UTC, rather than the beginning of day 7 UTC.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
This is poor practice for anyone with sysop tools. Unless there are reasons that meet the speedy deletion criteria and the speedy deletion process is followed, there is no excuse to cut out the wider Wikimedia Commons community from having a full week to add to a DR discussion. --Fæ (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
If a DR could reasonably have been a speedy, then I don't think policies do or should preclude closing early. Otherwise, I agree with you. Storkk (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
We are in agreement. When closing a DR early because of a speedy deletion rationale, those reasons must be spelt out very clearly so that the DR is then handled as a speedy deletion request. It would be an improvement to our procedures if DRs which are closed early are automatically reclassified/recategorized as speedy deletions and are not counted as DRs in our summary reports. --Fæ (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I think we are on the same page, but I don't understand what you mean by "so that the DR is then handled as a speedy deletion request". I appreciate you cannot see the file, but assuming for the moment that Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Theo_hernandez.jpeg was a pretty clear copyright violation, would you change the way that DR was closed? Storkk (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
The deletion reason was correct, however if it had been closed before the 7 days as a copyvio, then it should have been spelt out as a "Speedy Deletion" as an obvious copyvio and categorized that way. Early closure would have been fine unless someone could produce some more evidence, or there was a reason to discuss for 7 days as it was not an obvious copyvio. --Fæ (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
It may be that I'm just muddled at the moment... if so, sorry for belaboring this, but there are still a couple of points: I would be happy to add wording to my early closures (e.g. "Deleted: (speedily) as a copyright violation"), and I have done this in the past, but I don't think this is going to gain consensus as a requirement on closing admins. When you say "categorized", do you mean adding a [[Category:]]? Does this structure already exist? My threshold for "obvious" is slightly lower for an actual DR than for a speedy because it leaves a "paper trail", I suppose I could be convinced it shouldn't be lower, but it is at the moment. Also, you realize that DR was closed early (I ask because of the hypotheticals in your reply)? I may be muddying the waters here, though. If you think I am, would you mind taking it to my talk? Storkk (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
DRs and speedy deletions need clear separation. If this DR was closed early it would have been better to mark it as a speedy (if only a word as you have suggested in the closing statement) and use a different category than the general category for DRs on a certain day. This will make it much easier to pull reports based on the categories to see how many deletions are down to speedy reasons and which have enough doubt to require the 7 day default discussion. --Fæ (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Fæ, Why do you think "DRs and speedy deletions need clear separation"? Would that affect an eventual restoration process? (It doesn't now.) Regards, Yann (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I am having difficulty understanding the resistance by some administrators to making a clear distinction between 7-day deletion requests and speedy deletions. They are different procedures and apply different criteria. As a rationale for the use of administrator rights to delete, or restore, having the two muddied by simply calling DRs closed early due to being swapped to speedy deletion rationales is a failure correctly to report Commons maintenance activities and a potential failure to hold those with sysop rights to account for the use of the tools.

There is no extra work here for administrators to consider, it's a question of doing deletions correctly against policy and being able to report on those activities. Any administrator closing a DR before the standard 7 days, must be able to demonstrate that they have correctly applied a speedy deletion rationale based on verifiable evidence, or that the DR was always unnecessary such as when a file is an obvious copyvio where there is no logical chance of later claiming there was doubt. --Fæ (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fæ, You don't answer to my question. Some copyright violations are discovered only years after being uploaded, and then speedy deleted. Some others are nominated right after being uploaded, but the deletion process takes weeks. I am not interested by rhetorical questions about speedy vs. regular deletions when this is not perminent to the process. That's why I ask if the deletion process should have any consequence on the potential restoration of the file, or anything else on a practical point of view. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
This thread is about the correct closure of deletion requests after 7 days. The fact that restoring a speedy deleted file is quite a different challenge to overturning a properly run DR is pretty obvious, and seems a tangent to the point of this thread, which is not about restoring deleted files in different scenarios. Similarly the arguments that closing DRs early helps the backlog are illogical, as this makes no difference to the number of actions required; all an administrator needs to do is pay attention to DRs which are over the 7 day limit and ignore the rest as they are are not ready for action, so literally are not a maintenance backlog. --Fæ (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Fæ, The difference about speedy vs. regular deletion is mainly the time allowed to comment or revert the request. Once a file is deleted, it doesn't matter by which procedure unless that makes a difference for a possible restoration. So far to me, it doesn't make a difference, so the subject is closed for me. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Normally I act this way:

  1. if the copyright violation is not as patent as it looks or is presumed (i.e. a DM issue, a contested topic) I wait for the whole week.
  2. if a photograph has been copied from a website and its uploader hasn't been around for ages (let's apart things like no EXIF data, bad resolution, etc), there are clear hints that we are dealing with an undoubtable copyright violation;
    1. the same applies when I found a photograph uploaded by an user who has a long and established history of copyright violation.
  3. if I suspect that the photograph might be copied from elsewhere but have not evidence, I contact the uploader (if available) and anyway wait for the whole week.

Resuming, I cut the DR short only when I have clear evidence that discussion wouldn't add anything being the case clear. ANYWAY if you think that this way to act is deprecated tell me and since the next DR I will wait for a week in every case. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I know I'm in the minority on this but my opinions haven't changed - I still don't see the harm in closing DRs early, Ofcourse I do agree closing DRs 3 days in is problematic but closing 1-2 maybe 3 days before the allotted time isn't all that problematic,
The way I see it is this: admins are taking their time to go through hundreds of DRs a day and if we're going to be unnecessarily over-strict on it it means less admins are going to bother closing them,
To me IMHO there's no need to be over pedantic on the closures but as I said I know I'm in the minority on this and I do expect to be ignored entirely tbh, Thanks for the ping Storkk. –Davey2010Talk 14:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree, I don't see any value in becoming too strict about the closing time. I tend to do a lot of cross-wiki work (primarily English Wikipedia → Commons issues) and often come across media which has been uploaded to Commons for use as part of disruptive activities on English Wikipedia. It's not unusual to find that some of the media has already been nominated for deletion, but when taken with the disruption at English Wikipedia, blocking of accounts and the like, keeping the DR open for a full seven days seems needlessly wasteful of the community's time. I provide a reason for closing the DR early, I would suggest that we allow some flexibility for early closures, but that we do ask for detailed explanations from administrators making early closures. Nick (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
If you had a "speedy delete this" button, why would you not press it in these cases? --Fæ (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, The point is "is there any chance that the file will be backed up by a permission for a free license?" (either explicitely or implicetely). If yes, there is a reason to wait for a week (or even more in some cases). If not, I don't see the point of waiting. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem with allowing "some flexibility for early closures" has meant that now hardly any DR is left open for 7 days. 7 days is not long as it is! There is little benefit to closing early, unless the file clearly qualifies for speedy deletion. And if it does qualify for speedy, then that should be explained in the closing comments, as I already stated at Commons_talk:Deletion_requests#Closing_deletion_nominations_early. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Jarould denying requests under criteria number 2

Hi, I have been sorting out some images that are falsely or hastily named by several user. Apparently @Jarould: declined my recent requests stating it does not comply with the renaming guidelines. In fact if you would look at most of the images by @Judgefloro: most of his images which are hastily uploaded en masse seems to have a code and is using ambiguous names such as this one File:0046jfBreadtalk Cubao LRT Katipunan Avenue Quezon Cityfvf 12.jpg wherein clearly there is no Breadtalk, it is not in Cubao, and the train line is nowhere in such picture. Given these facts, it clearly falls under category number 2 of the rename. Also given the recent arguments for [the Josephdilangan case], I think that most of his uploads merit a rename that would clearly describe what the image is about. Korean Rail Fan (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Good Evening and Hello
Good morning and thanks for your message and concern; I would like to explain a) that I am using in the title jf that is Judge Floro and at the end is fvf or Florentino Velasquez Floro; as I do deeply feel, as Editor of Wikipedia the photographer Judge Florentino Floro donated all this photos to me and the 120,000 of them to wiki break and ailing or sick RamonFVelasquez, and Judge Floro set a condition that I will Donate all his photos donated to me to Wikimedia Commons for public domain and I will never upload them in any internet site, and that all his photos can be used without any condition, that is, without even attributing the photos used to him; the jf and fvf are only precautionary measures that one using Judge Floro's pictures should follow the Letter and Spirit of the Philosophy and Beliefs of Wikimedia Common Creators or Owners, that is Liberality of the Giver for Wisdom even if Judge Floro went to the extremes of not even wanting to attribute to him these photos; if you open the internet, worldwide, the photos of Judge Floro were used and they would even cite Judge Floro as uploader and not us, Editors; and Judge Floro has no desire to be attributed for he believes in the Wikimedia Commons Philosophy of integrity and no advertisements, the value of the Name and photography; b) I am deeply concern also in the naming of files; for example, when the Upload Wizzard permits 50 photos, there are some photos that have different names but are included in the areas towns or barangays; for example - a Christian Church is beside the School and a restobar, thus the the title opted or selected by me as Editor is jfIglesia School Roads Church Restobar Malolos Bulacan Landmarksfvf which in essence is very comprehensive, but when a flower or a corn and fish is put in there, an editor would really complain; ergo c) I have no objection whatsoever to renaming my uploaded files even without my permission so as to help Us the Commons community make Commons better; I spent 16 hours uploading for 4 years in many forums and websites the top ones like defunct Friendster, etc. but I lost many valued images in YouTube etc. and I cannot recover them; I spent a lot in capturing moments of Cockfighting when my videos were deleted without my knowledge; there are other sites, but my Philosophy of Photography is only into and from Commons best dealings with Knowledge and Integrity; d) I am not submitting reasons like slow internet in the Philippines, low memory and hanging; I am just asking the kindness of Editors to please understand my predicament thusly: as Editor, I accompany Judge Floro in his photography in the most dangerous areas of the Philippines starting at 11 a.m. to 6 pm waiting for the sun and travelling 2 hours to the site; back at 9 pm I edit until 11 pm and then Upload less than 700 photos until 3 am; I suffer from Vertigo illness due to lack of sleep but I am racing against time since I was told of the prophecy that many areas in the sites we take photos under Judge Floro would suffer calamities if not even erased; please open Mabini, Lian, Nasugbu, Batangas; the destroyed by fire Hall of San Antonio, Nueva Ecija with only 1 photo; Resort World Manila; San Carlos and Santa Rita and Santo Tomas, San Luis, Pampanga, where the Bird Flu obligated a loss of Billions to Egg industry; open the 4,ooo barangays and many of them are subject to these drug operations and fate; Even with 716,000 photos and plus the 120,000 uploaded by ailing User RamonFVelasquez, at age 64, I still am not so keen on the Internet and the ramifications of re-naming and the templates problems; I have been detained in one Town of Pangasinan and when the police knew that I am a Judge they understood and I was thankful that I was not tortured by the natives; the other day a Catholic priest almost took my camera even if I do have, as Catholic a permission to take photos, amid the monetary problems and depressions thereat; these 716,000 photos were not taken free, I personally spent millions to catch the Sun, which is so evasive; I love the hour before the setting of the sun spending so much money amid the harrasments by those who have nothing to do in depressed areas; a Regional Trial Court Judge, as I am, here in Philippines is exempted from Protocols of Photography but my enemy is time, often, the clouds cover the sun and I still love the sun; I am respectfully submitting this my Philosophy of Commons Photography under the Community which became my Home since then; a word perhaps; Why do to take photos and upload' only 1 answer, I want to capture the elusive Aliens and UFOs that can be scientifically uploaded here in Commons the Real ones allowed by Quantum Physics, Molecular Biology and Mystic Theology, Very sincere, and regards--Judgefloro 13:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC) (talk)
Thanks for your messages and Good evening (hereat in Philippines); File:8996Close-ups of Hibiscus rosa-sinensis Philippines 01.jpg I am now trying my best to put the best and correct file names and I took off my jf and fvf for it is only now that I received notice of this desire, there are some editors who use their code names but I opted to take off my own initials regards and sincerely yours

-Judgefloro 14:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC) (talk)

(I didn’t read the loooong answer of Judgefloro) Korean Rail Fan, your example is a good example for file renaming reason 3, not 2. And it is always a good idea to add some more information in the rename request (add it after the prefilled text). — Speravir – 23:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Speravir This is noted, although I can't add more info to every request due to the volume of the images needing to be renamed, instead I may add them to few of the images under the same original file name instead. Judgefloro If I may suggest, you could just limit the number of uploads to those that are of good quality as I have noticed there are images of poor quality that is barely usable in the wikipedia pages as well as use a more precise name (eg. "xxxjf Line 2 Katipunan Station fvfxx.jpg" for pictures depicting LRTA Line 2, xxjf "Aurora Boulevard corner EDSA fvfxx.jpg" for pictures depicting EDSA-Aurora, etc) as it takes us time to sort out your images. Don't get me wrong but I think I can speak to everyone here that we appreciate your endeavor in producing these images but quality is better appreciated than quantity here in the wiki. Cheers! Korean Rail Fan (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your messages and Good evening (hereat in Philippines); a) please let me add this point on file naming; I had many problems with Filipino words like Mabalacat Pampanga and others including # etc. which resulted in my failing to upload and was asked by the Upload wizzard to rename; just yesterday when I removed jf and fvf, I had a problem when the Uploaded photos failed to have any description, and I have to resort to trying to upload 1 photo to make sure that the template would include description; I found that my description when edited had the number 0 which resulted to zero description; I decided last night to take off jf and fvf to be sincere here in my Donation to Commons without anything in return; b) second, let me assure you that there are poor images that I decided to upload since they are Valued or important images; I am not submitting here my reason of utterly great expense in going to the site, just to find the Sun out; you in the West have no problem or dislike for gloomy photos; pardon if I hate photos without the 3 pm orange to red sun burning my subjects, no million dollar camera can replace that; I write long because I desire to put here my Long Philosophy of Photography with my say small Camera Nikon Coolpics that can shoot even the most crazy people would stalk me and stare at me; the culture here in Philippines is different from yours; c) there are images that I waited for years to capture since I want the sun fully off from any clouds, yes, I am a perfectionist when I want blue I want blue; so I take in boats the angle by angle photos of say thousands of pictures on River Districts even duplicating again and again, the most beautiful serene Islands of Malolos etc. in the SUN; d) I may repeat that I take so many photos hoping to capture the aliens and UFOs but of 716,000 now plus 120,000 of RamonFVelasquez also of Judge Floro, only the Profile Blue photos and about 10 were captured, but I am happy about that; d) what I do is to Invest in pictures and Upload FIFO the best and valued and later on when rains and clouds come, I upload the repetitious but valued LIFO until I finish all my photos in my cabinet; Please help me by sharing your knowledges and wisdom on editing my Photos descriptions and even the Categories and file names, at 64 I am a Senior Alien Citizen thusly, I beg your indulgence to bear with my weaknesses and greed especially of taking so many photos; but rest assured that I am ahead of my times; a final note perhaps: I take hard and thousands of Photos of Barangays San Carlos, Santo Tomas and Santa Rita of San Luis, Pampanga, even telling the natives of the dire punishments to come that I showed the teenagers of Apalit the UFOs they saw at nights; meaning the Virus Bird Flu towards Jaen and San Isidro Nueva Ecija; Take my Resort World Manila, why, now the answer is told by Aliens, Mabini, Lian and Nasugbu Batangas plust the Mango Kurikum Virus which almost killed the industry including Cocolisap of Coconuts at Tanawan to all over; I am sure that of 2,000 editors of Commons one or 2 have faith in what I am saying about Aliens and UFOs; I was repeatedly invited to a Europe country to Heal but I rejected the offer, since they felt that the Aliens took off all the Healing Powers of Priests and Magicians here; I want to meet Commons editors who really have seen UFOs and Aliens, come and visit the Philippines, and I pray that my Nikon can catch 2 or 3 more, very sincerely yours and best regards -Judgefloro 15:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC) (talk)

Solarbrisk

Please remove this user's autopatrolled flag as it's globally locked as a sock (apparently of Russavia).--GZWDer (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

A request to review a recent edit for revision deletion

Please check if the recent edit by User:Jay.insley (Redacted) requires revision deletion (not wishing to detail due to concern of contributory infringement). I've redacted it as courtesy for now. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 10:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done --AFBorchert (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 13:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

SD mehrerer Dateien und Verschiebung..

Hallo, zu einer Bilderserie von mir von 14 Fotos waren 5 bereits vor Monaten durch mich hochgeladen worden. Diese hatte ich mangels Erinnerung nun wieder mithochgeladen. Sie sind aber nicht doppelt, weil die zuerst hochgeladenen 5 durch einen MA der Fotowerkstatt aufgebessert wurden und behalten werden sollen.
Ich möchte nun die neu hochgeladenen Altversionen der Fotos löschen lassen und in diese Lücken die bereits hochgeladenen Fotos durch Verschieben einsortieren.
Es handelt sich um die folgenden Fotos, auf deren Namen die dahinter genannten Fotos zu verschieben wären. (Bitte Kleinschreibung der Dateiendung beachten.)

  1. File:Görlitz Spindel (05).jpg <-- File:Görlitz Spindel (1).JPG
  2. File:Görlitz Spindel (06).jpg <-- File:Görlitz Spindel (2).JPG
  3. File:Görlitz Spindel (07).jpg <-- File:Görlitz Spindel (3).JPG
  4. File:Görlitz Spindel (08).jpg <-- File:Görlitz Spindel (4).JPG
  5. File:Görlitz Spindel (09).jpg <-- File:Görlitz Spindel (5).JPG

Kann das ein Admin als Paketaufgabe übernehmen oder muß ich jede der 5 Dateien mit {{SD ... löschen lassen und selbst verschieben? Und der Verschieberest muß auch bereinigt werden. Vielen Dank! --Tommes 19:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Steinsplitter vielleicht? --Tommes 15:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@Tommes: Also, ich soll die Dateien von rechts nach links verschieben und dabei die linken überschreiben/löschen? --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Ich habe es gerade (hoffentlich korrekt) erledigt! oder, Tommes? --Emha (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC) cc Steinsplitter

Dankeschön! Wenn Du noch meiner letzten, implizierten Bitte ..Und der Verschieberest muß auch bereinigt werden nachkommst, wärer das extraordinär freundlich! (Die oben rechtsseitig stehenden müüsen dann rot sein ;) --Tommes 04:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Tommes: ich lösche doch so ungern   Nein, im Ernst: jetzt müsste es passen, glaube ich. Viele Grüße, --Emha (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Emha (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Dankeschön! Bis bald! --Tommes 18:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

User:PokestarFan

Letting everyone know that there is a proposal for a global ban meta:Requests for comment/Global ban for PokestarFan. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.172.143.180 (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Endorsement of my patroller user right

I was given the patroller right back in March by User:Daphne Lantier [3]. I hadn't requested it, but had no objection in having it. In light of recent events, could an independent admin endorse this decision, or alternatively revert the user right if necessary. Thanks. Optimist on the run (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You are a trusted user who knows what what they are doing. No need for removal if you ask me :). Granting you the flag was okay. Natuur12 (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

License review under backlog

License review is again under backlog this time we no longer have INC sock Daphne Lantier so please have a look on the backlog before it gets worsen (319 now). Thanking --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 09:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Another user's file deleted by now-blocked admin- Help appreciated

Bearing in mind that User:Daphne Lantier has been banned for reasons relating to her conduct and isn't in a position to do anything about it, can someone please help out with another user's problem relating to a file she deleted a while back? Thanks. Ubcule (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

In such cases you may simply send them to COM:UDR. Jcb (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Déclaration de Jonathan Kerr

Suite à ma demande, Monsieur Jonathan Kerr a envoyé la déclaration du 2 août avec ses photos attachées à l'adresse permissions-fr wikimedia.org. J'ai besoin d'utiliser ces photos dans l'article Jonathan Kerr. À quel stade cette procédure se trouve-t-elle ? Quel est le statut de cette déclaration ? V2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by V2016 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@V2016: Hello, tu as reçu une réponse a ce sujet sur COM:OTRS/Noticeboard, il est inutile de multiplier les demandes... cette permission ne nous est jamais parvenue. Entre-temps, une nouvelle permission a bien été reçue, mais elle n'émane pas de l'ayant-droit. Merci de voir avec Monsieur Kerr directement ou me contacter directement, je suis l'agent qui traite ce cas. :-) Bonne journée. --AntonierCH (d) 16:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --AntonierCH (d) 16:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Naming Palestinian places as being in Israel

...are all Palestinian places, located on the Israeli occupied West Bank.

Now, not even Israeli officials say that these places are in Israel, still that is what Wikipedia commons apparently does? At least my renaming request was denied. How come? Huldra (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Nowhere it says that this is in Israel. These are image by the Category:Images from the Pikiwiki project. See also m:Wikimedia Israel/Free image collection project. So names are correct, but you may complete the descriptions. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I am not familiar with these uploads, however looking at contributions from Pikiwikisrael I don't think the "PikiWiki_Israel_<id number>" naming scheme is intended to imply that the photos are necessarily in Israel, but instead that they were uploaded by the Israeli Pikiwiki project. Most, if not all, of their uploaded photos appear to start with that prefix/ID scheme. —RP88 (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Lets see, Each of those photos has the text: "The project is cooperation between the Israel Internet Association and Wikimedia Israel in an effort to promote the concept of free content on the Web, by creating an image collection of digital-format, good quality photographs, documenting events relating to the history of Israel, or depicting places of distinction around the country." This is grossly misleading, Huldra (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Everybody can see this is a standard template. I think there is not really an issue here. Jcb (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
A standard template, which gives false information, and that is not an issue?? Huldra (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Are you saying that the Israeli occupation is unrelated to Israel?    FDMS  4    21:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I am saying that land occupied by Israel is not in Israel. No government says so, not even the Israeli government says so. Only right wing settler organisations, and apparently Wikipedia commons, Huldra (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons is a place where some people overdo political correctness. Anyhow, I do not see what admin action could be taken here. At this noticeboard we cannot help you. Jcb (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Huldra, I think there is some sort of misunderstand going on here. Are you still objecting to the file names, or do you have an objection with the content of Template:pikiwiki? —RP88 (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
RP88, both, actually. It is extremely insulting to any Palestinian that places like the Sheikh Bilal grave is listed, both with Israel in its name, and with the current template text.
And Jcb, this is not about overdoing political correctness, this is about not shitting on people. To put it bluntly. Huldra (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
OK. To be clear, you have two separate objections. First, you object to the "PikiWiki Israel" project including their own name in the file name of photos that are of subjects sensitive to Palestinians. Second, you think that their description of the photos in their collection at Template:pikiwiki is also insulting when the collection description template is attached to a subject sensitive to Palestinians. Am I correct? —RP88 (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that is basically it. Except the language "sensitive to" is a bit mild. What would, say Canadian editors think if places in, say Ottawa, was named PikiWiki_USA? I suspect no Canadian would like that very much. But this is what Wikipedia Commons do to Palestinians. Huldra (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I apologize if my "sensitive to" wording downplayed the issue. I don't think your "PikiWiki_USA" hypothetical helps your cause, since I can't imagine being insulted by that at all. Lets leave the issue of the file name alone for a moment, and instead attempt to resolve the issue of the {{Pikiwiki}} template on those pages. Do you think the very presence of that template on those photos is insulting (i.e. no matter how the project described the contents of their collection) or could you imagine a description that you would find acceptable? For example, when I read the contents of that template I see no suggestion that the photos in the colliection are all in Israel (as you mentioned above). However, it is apparent you do read such an implication into the current wording. Do you have a suggestion as to how {{Pikiwiki}} could be be changed to include a description of the contents of the collection that you would find acceptable? I've left a note on Deror avi's discussion page, since he is listed as the contact person for the Pikiwiki project. Perhaps he will be amenable to expanding the description of the photos in the collection in a way that you feel would not be insulting. —RP88 (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) @Huldra: You are welcome to get together a Palestinian photography project, photograph Palestinian subjects, and name the photos accordingly. You are also welcome to make derivative works from existing photos on Commons with less objectionable names and descriptions, as long as you comply with the terms of the licenses of the existing photos.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Encouraging users to create derivative works just for the sake of having different filenames or description pages doesn't sound like a wise idea.    FDMS  4    23:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with FDMS4, I don't think creating duplicate photos with different names and descriptions is a good solution to Huldra's complaint. In fact, if I came across such duplicates during the normal course of reviewing uploads to Commons I'd probably merge the descriptions and delete the duplicate. —RP88 (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, since Canada isn't occupied by the US, possibly Canadians would just laugh if a Canadian place was labelled under "PikiWiki_USA". But the West Bank, including the above Sheikh Bilal grave, is occupied, by Israel, and, please just take my word for it: that occupation is no laughing matter for any Palestinian. It is, quite literally, a deadly serious issue. AFAIK, there are no Palestinians on the West Bank presently participating on Wikipedia, at least not on English Wikipedia (which is the Wikipedia I know best.) Most people on the West Bank (not to mention Gaza) have more than enough with just surviving, and have no time for "luxuries", like participating in Wikipedia.
I would prefer that all places in Palestine, if they have to have a place name in the title, then that place name should be "Palestine". Huldra (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Huldra,if possible, would you consider addressing my two questions directed to you regarding the {{Pikiwiki}} template? I realize you would also like to see the file name issue addressed, but file name issues on Commons are trickier than template contents, since Commons has an explicit policy of deference to the uploader's choice of file name and the stability of file names. I don't mean to imply that your concern isn't warranted or that these file names won't be changed, I just I think resolving your issue with the contents of the template first might lead to a solution. —RP88 (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, to take the above example of the Sheikh Bilal grave, the Israeli Pikiwiki project text on those pages now says "documenting events relating to the history of Israel, or depicting places of distinction around the country." For a start, that is wrong, at least as I read it, that is that the country it refers to is Israel. It is not in Israel. No government anywhere claims that it is in Israel, not even the Israeli government . If it was changed to, say "documenting events relating to the history of the Middle East, or depicting places of distinction around the Middle East," then that would be more correct. (And I have seen file names being changed before, say when people have uploaded pictures with "Occupied Palestine," then that has been changed here on Commons, even if the international community agrees that it is an occupied land.) Huldra (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that helps to explain your issue with the contents of the {{Pikiwiki}} template. When I read "documenting events relating to the history of Israel" I don't read the current text as implying that every photo in the collection is in Israel, as you do. For example, in an attempt to make a somewhat strained hypothetical, I would not necessarily be surprised to find that an institution has a photo of a section of the coast of Normandy, France in a collection described as containing photos relating to the history of USA. However, it could be clearer, and perhaps the Pikiwiki Isreal project has no objections to the collection description in that template being clarified. I think you've made your objections clear, let's wait a bit to see if anyone related to the Pikiwiki project has any input. If they don't respond I would be willing to edit the template to clarify that the collection includes photos from other places in the Middle East besides Israel. —RP88 (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I haven’t heard from anyone associated with the Pikiwiki Israel project, so I’ve changed the “places of distinction around the country” phrase in the {{Pikiwiki}} template to “places of distinction in Israel and the Middle East” to clarify that all photos in this collection are not necessarily in Israel. With regards to the file names, I’ve given this some thought, and I’m not going to overturn Jarould’s decision regarding the renaming of these files. Commons renaming policy favors stable file names and a deference to the the original uploader’s choice of file name. With regards to Pikiwiki Isreal’s use of their project name in their file names, I do not believe the name of the Pikiwiki Isreal project is offensive in its own right and in my opinion the use of their project name as part of a prefix/ID scheme in their file naming scheme is not intended to be blatant advertising, a personal attack, nor do I believe it to be an effort to disrupt Commons to illustrate a point. —RP88 (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for making the template somewhat less insulting. As for the naming issue, I see that commons renamed all of User:Just1pin pictures, which were named “Palestine occupation“, while it keeps extremely biased names directly from the occupation forces, say like this. Sigh. Huldra (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry, I can't speak to what happened in 2006, as I wasn't an editor, much less an admin at the time. However, speaking for myself, if an organization by the name of "Occupied Palestine" were to encourage Palestinians to take photos of interest to Palestinians and then this organization uploaded this collection using a general file naming scheme of "Occupied Palestine ID# useful description" and most of the photos in the collection were of Palestine but a some were photos of Israel or other places I would not approve a third-party request to rename and certainly would object to a mass rename effort, unless I thought the upload had been done as a stunt to disrupt Commons. If you encounter a case where you think uploaders of Palestinian-related images are being harassed (wth rename requests, or otherwise) please let me know and I'll investigate. —RP88 (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. From what I can see, every one of the pictures that User:Just1pin uploaded, was from areas occupied by Israel in 1967, places like Ramallah and Hebron. And not even the Israeli government says that those places are in Israel. If anything, then I would like to rename a lot of, if not every one of the pictures uploaded from the Israeli army. They typically have titles about like this: when villagers protest against theft of village land, they become "Violent rioters", while the occupational force becomes "security forces". There are literally thousands of these Israeli military pictures on commons, with equally misleading titles and descriptions, Huldra (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I have no doubt that you can find files that you consider to be Israeli propaganda on Commons. Please keep in mind that Commons is a media repository, not a museum or even an encyclopedia, and as such files uploaded to Commons are not currently required to adopt a neutral point of view (see Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view). Commons attempts to be accommodating to uploaders with what are inevitably wildly different points of view. Just as Commons has not turned away from accepting files from the IDF that you consider to be Israeli propaganda, Commons should also not be turning away from accepting files that others might consider to be Palestinian propaganda. Of course, it is strongly preferable that uploaders do strive to to be neutral, but even if they do not, the individual Wikipedias are free to choose to use the files that those projects feel best meet their policies with captions of their own choosing and ignore files they find objectionable or otherwise outside the bounds of their local policy.

Since 2010, Commons has adopted a policy of deference to the uploader's choice of file name, aiming to provide stable file names. You can find the current renaming policy at Commons:File renaming. With regards to your suggestion that thousands of Israeli military pictures on Commons be renamed, in the abstract case I would object on the same grounds that I objected to the hypothetical mass rename effort of files of the form "Occupied Palestine ID# useful description" mentioned above. However, there have been several notable cases on Commons where committed contributors have written detailed proposals and assembled a consensus to preform a mass keep/delete/rename and have managed to change or adopt exceptions to Commons policy, and I would encourage you to pursue this if you feel the current policy is unduly prejudicial.

With regards to File:Rioters Throw Rocks near Nabi Saleh.jpg, given the edit warring over the description, I'm not surprised an admin elected to revert to the orignal uploader's description. I don't fault him for that decision, even if I personally might have tried to craft a more neutral description given the non-neutral POV of the original source's description. Note that this file actually illustrates my point that reusers don't have to use the description that is on Commons. That file appears in the English Wikipedia article Nabi Salih with the caption of "Palestinian protesters clashing with Israeli forces near Nabi Salih, 2011" instead of IDF's rather more pointed description.

That being said, even though I don't agree with your most recent suggestions, if you bring to my attention a current instance of an uploader of files with a pro-Palestinian POV being harassed by those you feel have a pro-israel POV, I promise I will listen (and of course if you assemble the consensus to change Commons renaming policy, as an admin I will be obliged to apply your new policy). —RP88 (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed response. To be honest, I basically gave up on commons years ago, as a place more or less dominated by Israeli settler policies. You make me think that this perhaps isn't so? Besides the Israeli military names, (and I'm really not sure if I want to invest all that time to change the descriptions), I would wish there were some way to stop people from labelling places in the Golan, or on the West Bank, as being "in Israel", especially wrt categories. It is not a new problem. Huldra (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Double deletions

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T173825

Entirely possible that this is a brain fart on my part, but this is the second time in the last couple days I've noticed this. How can a file be deleted if it has already been deleted and not re-uploaded or restored in the meantime? Special:Undelete/File:下課後_1_國語版.webm, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=File%3A%E4%B8%8B%E8%AA%B2%E5%BE%8C+1+%E5%9C%8B%E8%AA%9E%E7%89%88.webm&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= Storkk (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm told that it's a server lag issue, and similarly, that deleted material can remain available through the source file URL for quite some time after deletion. There's a discussion and a Phab ticket somewhere (I don't have either to hand right now, unfortunately). Nick (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I've seen the ticket about the server lag affecting availability. I didn't realize it allowed for double deletions. Thanks, mystery solved! :-) Storkk (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Wow, I'm just pondering how buggy that could make some tools in the future, where the workflow in the permanent logs will literally be illogical. --Fæ (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I suspect double-deletion is a problem of Special:Nuke, the tool has a number of bugs (especially with file deletion/media storage interactions). I don't suggest to use it here on commons. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Here is one which was probably not caused by Nuke... although the time difference between deletions was much smaller. Storkk (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
It affected me a few days ago when deleting a copyvio logo. I did press the "Delete" button twice, since I thought my connection was bad or that it didn't register that I pressed the button. Ended up with two deletions in the log, without a re-upload. I pondered it for a few moments but just added it up to my bad connection, but might have been server issues as well. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Uploads of User:Pfareryy

These files are a bit too complicated for a common speedy rationale. I hope it's OK to list them here with additional details. All of them should be deleted - they are likely copyvios and include fake image information to create hoax content on en-Wiki.

Several sock accounts have added Dhuri-related hoaxes in the past (see AfD link above for more background info). In short: please speedy delete this rubbish. GermanJoe (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done All files deleted, user warned. Yann (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

mass delete

Good day, I made a mistake while uploading some files. They should be deleted so I can re-upload them appropriately. It would be too long to rename all of them individually. Thanks.

The files are named File:Atj-Anthony Dubé-acikana-LL9590 01.wav to File:Atj-Anthony Dubé-acikana-LL9590 21.wav.

Amqui (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done Hystrix (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Amqui (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Help

Can someone look at File:FAA Symbol.jpg and the source-author-license? Thx. Jessy Walters (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

  Comment It would appear that the source is US-GovFAA, but there's limits placed on the use of the image at https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/order/branding_writing/Branding_Order_17006.pdf as well. It appears the uploader copied the author field from the author of the article to which this was appended at the source provided on the template. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I deleted all contributions of the uploader due to wrong licenses. Taivo (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Visual File Change broken?

Greetings: I have tried several times today to utilize the VFC "Visual File Change" tool from left-side bar and it does not go past the "collecting data" step, and stays white, even when testing it on user uploads with one or two entries. Same results from testing it on my own user uploads which are >100. Is there anyone else having same issues, or anyone with a suggestion? Please ping me, we're having the usual rural internet problems! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Known issue: Commons:Village_pump#VisualFileChange_broken --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

"Own work - no permission by date" RFC

I've created a proposal to introduce a deletion template/category for disputed claims of "own work". The discussion can be found at Commons talk:Deletion policy#Own_work - no permission templates. Guanaco (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Commons delinker not working

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T174164
RESOLVED

I have been trying to rename files but it gets stuck at Ordering CommonsDelinker to replace all usage. Please look into it --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 10:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tiven2240: Can you please elaborate the problem a bit? Thanks. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: I've had this same problem. "Move & Replace" via MediaWiki:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js will move a file, but then it fails to replace any of the links using your own account (without any visible error message). It seems to detect that the links have not been successfully replaced, so it invokes CommonsDelinker. It hangs there as Tiven2240 described. Guanaco (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I suspect this is because of phab:T110353 (Then CORS login fails) - but i am not 100% sure. Ping @Zhuyifei1999: Apart from that, there seems to be a problem with wikidata replacements. The (onwiki global replace) script has currently no real maintainer :(. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter, Zhuyifei1999, Bawollf, and Matma Rex: Wouldn’t it be a good idea to temporary re-introduce the deprecated Javascript function? Then in all scripts could be searched for it and they could be fix ed without a hurry. — Speravir – 20:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Made a typo hence separate: @Bawolff. — Speravir – 20:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Krinkle: According to phab:T174164#3554292 you have found the reason (Special:Diff/254036650/256348772), but the CommonsDelinker still does not work. — Speravir – 23:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
May there be some caching? — Speravir – 17:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Works for me now, after clearing the browser cache. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I thought it would be enough to reload without cache, usually called purging cache. I intentionally went to MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition. BTW your link is outdated for Firefox, cf. How to clear the Firefox cache - Firefox Help (other language versions available from there). — Speravir – 22:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Process Duplicates broken.

Hi, I regularly work on Special:ListDuplicatedFiles to reduce the count of this backlog. Since today, when I click on the green Process Duplicates near the button of a file description page, the page is loading forever telling me Fetching details without any progress. I tried it with multiple files i.e. File:Mountains 00025.jpg. I also tried to dis- and re-enanble some gadgets I use, without any effect. I'm using Firefox 55.0.2 on Windows 7. Whats wrong? Thx for any help or ideas. --JuTa 18:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The same here, FF ESR 52.1.2 on Win XP SP3. I bet that this is related to phab:T169385. --jdx Re: 20:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
What ever happened: Its working now. Thanks to who ever fixed it. --JuTa 07:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Sigh

Someone kindly... unburden us of these files (NSFW)? Maybe they should go to a deletion discussion... but... is that really necessary? TimothyJosephWood 19:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, follow the DR procedure, it's not that tricky. --Fæ (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Somebody has started DRs in the meantime. That's indeed the way. No need to circumvent the procedures. Jcb (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The user has vandalized the DRs by removing users' {{Vd}}. I left a stern warning on their talk page. Guanaco (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Review Flickr Image

Dear Administrator,
Please review File:Aarey Milk Colony, Mumbai.jpg that was originally posted on Flickr.
Regards,
Sanfy (talk)

@Sanfy:   Done. In the future there's no need to post here. If the bot review fails, it goes to Category:Flickr images needing human review. We patrol this regularly.
Also, it helps to upload the full size file from Flickr. Higher resolution is always preferred, and the bot is more likely to succeed if it's the original. Guanaco (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Poyekhali

Please remove all my main account and alternate account's privileges and block all my accounts indef. Thanks, ★Poyekhali 02:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Poyekhali: Why?   — Jeff G. ツ 02:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: It's not the first time .. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 10:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Poyekhali: A block is not necessary, please use the WikiBreak Enforcer. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  Done Yann (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

En:Fonk Recordings

Somebody with extra buttons probably should take a look at this article on en.wiki. There are a few dozen images, all of which seem on their face to be either obviously or likely copyrighted and all of which have at some point been cross-wiki uploaded here as own work. TimothyJosephWood 13:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done 1989 created regular deletion request. Taivo (talk) 06:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Adem Demaçi.PNG

Please delete the differing version. Overwritten file, likely copyvio (published at [4]). Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Files to be deleted

Hi. Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Siege UNIR PS Ouaga (cropped).jpg could anyone also delete the cropped versions File:Thomas Sankara (cropped).jpg and File:Siege UNIR PS Ouaga (cropped) (cropped).jpg ? Thanks. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done Yann (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Add new line to OgreBot

Hello. Can you add a line to User:OgreBot/gallery for me please.

* Category:New York City Subway | User:Drabdullayev17/New York City Subway/recent uploads | 150x150 DAYS_PER_GALLERY(1)

I want caterogize this uploads every day. Thank you very much. --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Problem with SteinsplitterBot ?

Hi everyone. SteinsplitterBot seems to have a problem. It continues to erase the content of Category:Hypocrisy‎ to transform it in a cat redirect, and also continues to move the concerned files to Category:Hypocrisy (band). Also, he now claims it's a request from Hedwig in Washington while I've initially asked for the cat move in order to use Category:Hypocrisy‎ for another topic. Thanks for your help. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Steinsplitter: .   — Jeff G. ツ 12:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I've already left a message on his talk page. I eventually decided to leave another message here when I read that on Commons:Bots : "Any admin may block a bot – without the autoblock option set – that is misbehaving if the operator is not immediately available to deal with the issue". --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
The bot is not misbehaving, it is moving the cat (and creating the redirect) as requested by Hedwig on CDC, i removed the commands from COM:CDC. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: I just don't understand why it's continueing. The first demand was to move Category:Hypocrisy‎ to Category:Hypocrisy (band) in order to use Category:Hypocrisy‎ for another topic afterwards. Therefore, after your bot had done its work, I recreated Category:Hypocrisy‎ with proper categorization and moved back the few files concerned by this topic from Category:Hypocrisy (band). So it seemed to me that the bot was misbehaving when it continued to move those files back to Category:Hypocrisy (band) and recreating Category:Hypocrisy‎ as a redirect cat. Could you explain that to me, please ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@TwoWings: As per instruction on the editnotice at COM:CDC, the move commands must be removed by hand (because the page is full protected) otherwise the task will start again. I encourage you to move it by hand, next time. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: I thought it was due to that, but I wasn't sure. The problem is : as a non-admin, I can't make any change on COM:CDC. Thanks for the job and for your explanations. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
You'r welcome. :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@TwoWings: Aloha! That was my bad, I simply forgot to remove the command and sorting the files into the appropriate category. Thanks you for taken up the task!   --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: No worries. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Mass deletion script?

Dnu72 has asked me to delete a bunch of self-uploaded images that have been superseded. It looks like we have several dozen (more than a hundred?) images involved, so while I'd be happy to delete one or a few of them manually, I don't feel like manually deleting them all right now. Does someone have a mass-deletion script? Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

VFC? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Courtesy link: COM:VFC. Storkk (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Obtaining a "press pass."

Hi, I would like to photograph an event that requires a "press pass" in order to take photographs. They want an "Editor" to sign off on a specifically described "assignment." The photos taken would be used to illustrate Wikipedia pages. I would like to cover this event - does Wikimedia have a mechanism for this? New territory for me... I think I have uploaded over 150 photos to Wikimedia Commons so far, so I do have a history of contributions. Thank you for any help you can provide. Lhcollins (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Lhcollins

The easiest way of having some "official" letter that you can use as a press pass, is to contact a Wikimedia chapter near you, see m:Local chapters. Wikimedia Commons has no equivalent hierarchy that can act on behalf of the project, though it may be a good idea to come up with a way of more directly making this possible without Chapters. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Multiple images needing deleted

From what I can tell all of these need to be speedied as obvious copyright violations. Figured I'd save myself ~30-40 clicks and come here. TimothyJosephWood 18:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Not that obvious, given that the uploader is likely claiming to be the copyright holder on their user page... but I've tagged them as needing documented permission via OTRS. Storkk (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit to the WLM campaign

Hi, I would need a small change to the Wiki loves monuments campaigns today

Reason for the change is that the field is for URL and when there is equals sign in the link (like http://foo.bar?key=value then it would be splitted as template parameter key (foo.bar?key) and parameter value (bar) and i need the whole text from the field. In edit 2 there is also change $2 -> $1 because $1 is the correct marker. --Zache (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Romaine will be able to help you. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure, but i though that it will be faster through admin noticeboard. --Zache (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
It is not about getting it done faster, but getting the campaigns working in the right way. And I am not happy, as these campaigns have not been set up in the right way, I am the one to fix it now. Also it is now completely unclear why these campaigns exist, and as coordinator I need to know that. Romaine (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

User:MALEX06

See here: User talk:MALEX06. Constantly uploading copyvio images. --It's Kong of Lazers talk to me 04:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done. You warned the user and Hedwig deleted all his/her contributions. No other action is needed at moment. Taivo (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

INeverCry

special:diff/256946640 — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 100.35.73.190 (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Help

Can anyone have a version of youtube to see if these 3 video clips abelow are licensed as CC BY as the uploader tell me on my talkpage.

If it is, please pass it and I will close the DR. I made a comment in a DR Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: You can search for the video-ID (e.g. FYkp6nG8cXQ) and then use the "filter" search option, to only discply videos which are "Creative Commons". This worked at east for the first video I checked. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: when withdrawing a DR, please don't remove the {{Delete}} template yourself... just tag the DR with {{Withdrawn}} (or {{Vk}} as you did) and let the closing admin finish up. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, I will do that and place the delete tags on the images in future for DR's which have not been closed. These have now been closed as clear cut cases. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Mass message request for WLM-US

Hi! I'm one of the Wiki Loves Monuments organizers for the US. Could an administrator send this message out to all of last year's WLM-US contributors? Let me know if there are any concerns.

Thank you! ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 07:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

  Done — regards, Revi 08:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@-revi: Thank you :) ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Files in Category:Matthias Manasi

Matthias Manasi is well known for sock puppetry, in Commons as well in de-WP and en-WP. At current there is a new sockpuppet: User:JournalPolski. He uploaded some files of Manasi, which are very likely copyvios.
Examples (filename and Exif declaration):

3 files, 3 different photographers, all 3 declared as own work by User:JournalPolski.

See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Matthias Manasi. There were 610 files deleted because of copyvio.

I think it can be assumed, that all files of User:AuditoriumRome, User:Philharmonicorchestra2013, User:Accademia Nazionale, User:KazakhCultureAlmaty, User:ArtistForum and User:LSOrchestra are also copyvios and should be deleted. Some of those users are already marked as sockpuppet.

I'm afraid the Manasi case has the potential to become the next Stuart Styron. --Stepro (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I've just added a "speedy deletion" tag to two pictures I uploaded two years ago. Can an administrator please do this quickly? (Or, e-mail me if you need more background information.). Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Privacy reason. I am being harassed by trolls over it. I can ask other people to upload new pictures--I just don't want to be associated with them any more. Please respect my privacy and delete them?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
It's actually three pictures. I could even give the copyright to another user, if they want to re-upload them. I just can't have them linked to my account.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I edited the file pages to reflect that you want to be attributed as AnonymousUnknown author. An admin could remove your username from the page history, I believe. Guanaco (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Guanaco: Can they be removed from my "uploads" too? Otherwise I am happy for them to be deleted from my account and re-uploaded by another editor. Also, the third one is this one; can you please make it anonymous as well? But if my uploads still show them, that's no good.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: It should be technically possible to redact your username from those log entries. I've updated the third file as well. Guanaco (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
So, is this possible? Or should the pictures be removed from my account and re-uploaded by another editor please?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Youtube layout update and copyright information

So, YouTube did a layout update few days ago (about 2-3 days ago?), and the new update is not displaying copyright information for some of their videos. There is even no "Standard YouTube License" or Category.

Example:

  1. File:170810 삼성 보너스베이비 직캠 16 어른이된다면 우리끼리 같이 놀자 프릭업 스튜디오.webm, uploader notified of this defect: here.
  2. File:나인뮤지스 'Love City' 4K 직캠 by DaftTaengk.png, uploader notified: here.

Since there is a case where the license information is properly displayed, I'm not sure if this is Google's temporary hiccup with their new layout, or intentional design decision, but keep an eye on that. Posting on AN for license-reviewers and admins who do LR's attention. — regards, Revi 08:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

See [5], it's probably temporary. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 09:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
You can still use YouTube's serch function to search for the video (or video ID), and then set the serch filters to only display CC-BY videos. So, license reviews are still possible,just cumbersome :) --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring and disruption

Requesting comment/assistance with user Exec's conduct. I'll give you a brief rundown of the history from my point of view:

He made a map of internal subdivisions of Nazi Germany in 1944. In overhauling the infobox on en:Nazi Germany I found his map, thought it was an improvement over what we had, and introduced it to the article. I then looked it over and noticed it has a bunch of translation errors and anachronistic features I thought weren't necessary, so I uploaded a new version. Exec reverted me, we talked about it here. I judged Exec to be completely non-receptive of criticism and felt we were talking past each-other (possibly because of the language gap?), so I gave up, and posted my fixes as separate files [6][7].

BUT, when I replaced his old file with the new version, he started revert-warring and posting repeated deletion requests. So.. across some months he's been scouring all projects replacing the new version (even though its PD ofc), posting deletion requests over and over, and now also edit-warring when I add my derivatives to the "other versions" list on his file ([8][9]).

I see this as pretty classic possessive disruption per COM:OWN. I'd just like him not to get off my back, stop with the deletion attempts (I recently had to reverse one) and revert-warring to remove any other version than the one he prefers. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

  Comment I closed the DRs, which are indeed not appropriate. For the decision about which map to use, you will have to see that in Wikipedia itself. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I certainly will. As pertains to Commons, there's also the issue of his removing links to the new variations of his map ([10][11]). I'm trying to give editors a couple options that don't, say, refer to Frankfurt as "Francfort" and such.. or feature an anachronistic 1937 border as thick as the goggles Germans view the war with...
He's not reverted the links again, but if he doesn't it'd break a long-standing pattern. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I need to clarify all the claims DIREKTOR did. They are all not the truth as I will show in the following.
I will not go through all the discussion on his “ideas” of “improvement” you can read here.
First thing to know, from my point of view the User DIREKTOR, started, without a discussion an edit war. His first step on June 29 2015 was to modify the maps without discussion in an unskilled cartographic way and apply changes for who, as turn out later in the discussion beginning June 30, he has no reasonable arguments on professional level. Then he created replicas of the map and try to aggressively replace the original map at all articles. I restored them and add some of the desired information about the military administration believing it will satisfy his crusade. After half a year he started a new attempt with automated tools for replacement and now try to back it up with a smart campaign of libel to assure support by admins to create the impression I am the one “disruptive” and “destructive” person and all is just about COM:OWN. That admins may get fooled by DIREKTOR is absolutely understandable cause most admins are not go deep in the history of the conflict and read all the discussions.
If you check my contributions you will see what I created high quality content and I am open to good Ideas to improvements as you can see at the contributions discussions where existent.
In my opinion he is obsessed on forcing his POV on that topic independent from any discussion or arguments and investing many time what seems creepy.
At that post here he claim:
  1. He did improvements – he did no improvements (long discussion). Short version: he doesn’t understand the difference between a military administration and international boundaries and the concept of a history map for an encyclopaedia.
  2. He noticed translation errors and anachronistics – that’s Berne/Bern and Francfort/Frankfurt (I offered to change this) and the exonym (Legend) or endonym (Label) for Reichskommissariat (what he doesn’t changed in the copies).
  3. I am non-receptive of criticism – he is not non-receptive to accept that his sentiment was inferior on the discussion. One, suggestions I added in the map (military administration boundary of “Belgium and Northern France”)
  4. language gap may responsible – absolutely not. At the discussion page you can see my long and detailed answers and arguments. His arguments just keep no check.
  5. he replacing „old files“– he just, automated replace the actual files with no higher right than me reverting it. My version is not an old one, this is just subliminal term.
  6. I am at his back - the opposite is the case as you can see at the discussion and the history of events. My time is very limited so I had no time to do nonsense things (like needing to explain everything in a long text)
  7. He claims it's about to protect “my” stuff from being “improved” COM:OWN - absolutely not. I am open to improvements as you can see at other maps which I improve by user suggestions.
So the question is, 1. why I fight against his Versions and 2. what I expect from the admins to ensure the quality at Wikipedia.
1. I fight against his version because they are in no aspect an improvement. Now you may say discus it. We did. A long discussion on all his ideas. The discussions ended with him proving having no idea about details on the thematic topic, this specific map, cartography at all. In addition, he has not the skill to modify the map as you may see at his versions. I will not repeat the discussion; you can check it here. Now you may say Execs opinion is having the same value to the opinion of DIREKTOR and may say let the community “decide”. By the way he uses automated tools to just replace my maps so how to decide? But beyond the proof of his lack of skill and knowledge at the discussion it seems that I need to introduce my selves.
I am a studied professional cartographer with a focus on the field historical boundaries. I am scientist, book author and approved and payed expert for European boundaries lines involved in different international scientific research and publishing projects of European history and maps. I name Palgrave MacMillan, Logos, be.bra, City of Berlin, Kirschbaum, Shaker, State of Brandenburg, Wichmann, Chmielorz i.e. and Mannheim Centre for European Social Research, University of Applied Sciences Berlin/Beuth University, Technical University of Berlin, Universitat de Lleida, Justus Liebig University, German Institute for Economic Research i.e.
I am corrector and write scientific articles on the analysis of mistakes and quality of history maps published by expert publishers and speaker at the international cartographic conference, AGIT and at TV. I don’t know if official approved expertize on encyclopedia and European level mean anything in Wikipedia but it should. The map we discuss here is a unique piece developed with experts on international law for ww2. You will find nothing compared in quality and thematically conception on the market today. I know it because I study the market. DIREKTOR on the other side showed that he doesn’t know about the concept of the map, the historical backgrounds in detail and even realize “improvements” implemented since he copied it so his copy is outdated anyway.
Additional he random add labels, for example "R.K. Ukraine" but with the wrong boundary because the map was designed for another date. He simply doen't know that he is doeing.
Replacing the maps with his versions, especially by force and libel, overruling all discussion (which are already through) will not just damage a unique map, it will damage a unique selling point of Wikipedia compared with maps of that topic in official encyclopaedias. Furthermore, it will prove some actual result of investigations on the administrative structure at Wikipedia.
2. Again, you can check it here. So Wikipedia needs to solve this either by allowing DIREKTOR playing his game and definitively ruin the map or even lower the quality including that I will no longer contribute to that platform, or someone stop the vandalism by DIREKTOR, study the discussion and apply a method preventing him from further actions. As mentioned in the discussion I can only offer to change Berne in Bern and Francfort to Frankfurt but furthermore there is nothing which he could successfully argue. I will always revert his replacements, and I ca not see why he should have a higher right on reverts, especially because he has no arguments. That it is an “improvement” is just a refuted claim.
Kind and tyried regards
--Exec (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Exec: I must admit I have seen some ugly things from your side, e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Internal divisions of Germany 1944.png. Please be aware that Commons has no point of view about which version of a map would be right or wrong. It's up to the various Wikipedia communities to make such choices. Please don't bring those discussions overhere. Jcb (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Right, this guy's carthographic Jesus, lowly peasants best not mess with his perfect work. Never mind he can't properly spell "Frankfurt" or "Krakow"... Also a map of 1944 Germany MUST have 1937 borders awkwardly and confusingly superimposed over it in thickest possible lines. Otherwise its VANDALISM. That's just science...
This is what I mean. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb What ungly things? Name it. What about replacing the map in all articals just by own decision bypassing the discussion? Not an ugly thing by DIREKTOR? I just asked for deletation due to vandalism, what was rejected... he just act without any regulation or protection or verification. If commons have no point of view, why DIREKTORS POV is more valuable than mine so why he is allowed to replace and I should just accepted it? How the community decide which is better if he just replace them? Or is the community the network of relationship to admins by special users? I am really suprised about how an expert who contribute for over 10 years is treated by special users with a lot of time and good friends.
@DIREKTOR Yes. I am good at that particular thing. Not just somehow good... I will not do grammar or mathematics, but at this special small topic you will hardly get a better one. Believe it or not. Are you a studied cartographer? Are you in that degree of details on ww2 boundary topics that you get payed for your opinion on it? I guess not but thats okay and I give up to explain the inner logic of the conception of the map. I try to explained it detailed and as you well know I know about speling of the the names :D ... BUT KNOW WHAT:
you win. DIREKTOR wins by social relationships to the admins. I gave you an offer on my page. Maybe you are satisfied, otherwise it just proofs your goal is the total unjustified victory of your POV and were is no will to discuss. My only condition is the 1937-boundary. I really don't understand why you refunsing to realize the explanation and the concept of a history map but I give you everyting exept this because this will destroy the the base conception.
--Exec (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


@Jcb @Jeff @Yann (just ask all of involved to be sure everyone knows) Can you please be more specific on what you mean and answer my question on how "democracy" should work if "special" users like DIREKTOR just replace items backed by admins and are unwilling to accept any explanations and the concept of discussion and expertise? Why is his opinion more valuable? Why is what I did ugly and what he started from just not accept losing the discussion and to enforce his non-expert POV? Especially due to the fact I made offers on the product associated with my real name and he still reject to settle all this until 100% of his POV is fulfilled? What about that behaviour? He calls me "Nazi" because I use a useful and informative borderline (December 31, 1937) defined by the allies in 1943 at the Moscow Conference which define the last valid boundary of Germany according to international law. Which was basement of all allied discussions for a post war order and which was valid according to international law and allied POV until 1990 a final contract between [Germany and Poland] settle the boundary. Which is useful for the reader to find a familiar geometry to compare and to get an impression from where the expansion started and where it ended. He ultimatively demands things... Is that okay to act like he do?
@DIREKTOR You may reject expertise as a concept which offend your value as a human but I am the expert and not you... and you will never be, never the less what you may archive in that case. You really should pay more respect to experts, especially if he don't hide behind a Fakename and stand with his real name and expertise behind his contributions. Due to that I can not accept the falsing of the content of the map what you did by changing the date or add labels not valid with the boundary geometry. You may missed that cause you are not familiar with the details. What is okay but you need to accept what your own opinion is not supperior to reality.
--Exec (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Add new line to OgreBot

Hello. Can you add a line to User:OgreBot/gallery for me please.

* Category:New York City Subway | User:Drabdullayev17/New York City Subway/recent uploads | 150x150 DAYS_PER_GALLERY(1)

I want caterogize this uploads every day. Thank you very much.

Note : I requested 29 August 2017. But my request archived on page 65 before solved. --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

  Done. Apparently everyone believed, that Magog the Ogre does it himself. Now I did it. I suppose, that this will be a lot of work for you. Happy editing! Taivo (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Grounds for a checkuser request

So I had a CU request declined as I failed to show "what the disruption to the project is". Is uploading manipulated/spurious maps to be used for POV-editing purposes on WP not considered disruption because it does not affect this project? Is looking for sleepers that might have uploaded other similar maps not grounds for a Checkuser? And how many "multiple accounts" on this site is considered too many? Should I even bother pursuing this?—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 18:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Mass message request for WLM-VE

Hi! I'm one of the Wiki Loves Monuments organizers for Venezuela. Could an administrator send this message out to all of previous contributors of WLM and WLE?

The body can be viewed here, and it's already signed. Many thanks --Oscar_. (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

  Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Steinsplitter! --Oscar_. (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Oscar .: Why was I targeted?   — Jeff G. ツ 19:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Uploaders in cat found your username in Wikiviajes por Venezuela 2014. It's any errors? --Oscar_. (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Oscar .: I don't remember putting any file into that category, and I've never been farther South than Florida.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: @Oscar .: Using this dandy tool, the culprit was File:La Ciénaga En El Ocaso..jpg - you just modified and re-uploaded the file, Jeff. Would be a nice feature if the "uploaders in cat" tool could only include original uploaders. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@Kevin Payravi: So I did. Thanks, Kevin!   — Jeff G. ツ 09:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I just opt-out your username from the list, if we're gonna use it in future occasions. --Oscar_. (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Video to commons tool

The video 2 commons tool which is at https://tools.wmflabs.org/video2commons/# uploads the video properly but now the date section and License is not getting copied from YouTube (example) . Is there any issues due to layout change of YouTube?. @Zhuyifei1999: @Steinsplitter: If any possibility please fix the same --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 02:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Possibly, will check. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
upgraded youtube_dl, please try again. The video you linked is standard youtube license anyhow though. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: Thanks for the fix I have uploaded another video which seems to be fine --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 04:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Mark for translation

Because it’s in my opinion urgent: Please mark someone of you admins Template:File renaming reasons/i18n for translation. — Speravir – 02:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  Done by Hedwig in Washington. — Speravir – 03:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tülin Şahin.jpg

Anyone with expertise on copyright can comment on this complicated DR if they wish. Its really difficult. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 15:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Diagram Error on Cube Mapping Page

I believe that the blue SVG diagram of cube mapping in the Memory Addressing section corresponding to the equations is erroneous. I believe that the u,v coordinates need to be swapped everywhere in the diagram for two reasons. First that is not the usual convention to have u up and v right. It is usually u right and v up. However, the main reason is that the diagram showing u up and v right does not seem to agree with the equations, which appear to be using u right and v up. This is most easily observed by case 4: *x = uc; *y = vc; *z = 1.0f; break; // POSITIVE Z, where it says x=uc and y=vc for Positive Z. Thus x and uc must point in the same direction (to the right). But the diagram for that case shows v (vc) pointing to the right.

I tried to contact the author (Microwerx), but they have no page. Also I do not have an SVG editor to modify the diagram.

Regards

Fred Weinhaus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmw421 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

A computer without an SVG editor would be hard to find, since SVG is plain text. I'm guessing this is about File:Cube map.svg, which is the only upload by User:Microwerx. Like all registered users, Microwerx does of course have a user talk page, but since they have no activity on any Wikimedia project since May last year, they may not respond. Not sure what administrator action is being requested here. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Possible rampant Copyright Violations

Hi, I am finding a Hebrew-language uploader who appears to be uploading a lot of pictures of Women Writers in Hebrew, under their own copyright: not sure what the best Batch way is to review these on Commons. Here is the users contributions: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RashutHashidur . Could someone with a bit more tooling/skill review this? Cheers, Sadads (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

For example, I would be very suprised if they have rights to: File:שרון וכסלר מגישת תחזית מזג האויר.jpgSadads (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The first few dozen I looked at were indistinguishable from professional photos.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

RevDel request

these six edits are purely disruptive. They should be RevDeled.--GZWDer (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Metadata revealing exact address of Juvenile

Hello Commons admins, I found this picture while patrolling on the en.wiki, and was directed here by an admin there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alejandro_Fuenzalida.jpg is on the user page of en.wikiUser:Alejandro_Fuenzalida which states that he is 13 years old. The metatdata for the picture gives the coordinates to the exact house where the photograph was taken. Is there any way to rev-del the coordinate information for child protection? Or should the image be deleted? Original conversation can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vanamonde93#Concerns_re:_child_safety_and_metadata. Thanks, L3X1 (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  Done. I nominated the photo for deletion as out of scope. Taivo (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  Thank you. L3X1 (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The little boy apparently does not care, today they uploaded: File:Photo Double at Disney's Magic Camp.jpg with location information. Jcb (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:License review/requests#Luisalvaz

Could someone take a look at this request? It's been four days, and no one else has commented on it. I'd like a second or third opinion before promoting. Guanaco (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Guanaco (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michael Taillard, PhD MBA.jpg

We need help determining if User:AshleyTaillard really is Michael Taillard's wife. OTRS as of this moment has not responded.

Thank you. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 03:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you post here. No admin action is needed. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Yann (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Layal Abboud - Plaza Palace Ceremony - Beirut - July 2015 - Lebanon 15 (Cropped).jpg

I Uploaded a cropped picture but User:User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 deleted it. --Chyah (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

this is a Complaining. this is not a natural, this user started teasing me actually. it's so clear. --Chyah (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
indeed, the picture taken by me, i uploaded it in 2015. has Metadata. --Chyah (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  Comment This is the wrong place. Please ask on COM:UDR with a valid reason. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Yann (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Email confirmation never arrives "hotmail"

Have tried several times. I registered last year, and contributing to wiki loves monuments this year. Requested the send email confirmation several times, no email arrives. Yes I've checked the spam folder. Peniole (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Have you checked your user preferences? Maybe you made a typo when you entered your email address? De728631 (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you De728631. Double checked email address, no typo. Tried to change it nonetheless, page refused as it was the same address that was already typed in.Peniole (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Consider asking at en:WP:VPT where similar issues (with Yahoo and possibly others) have been discussed in the past. I have a feeling the problems in the way the system sends emails (which caused some receivers to ignore them) have been fixed, but that would be the place to ask. Johnuniq (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker script

Hi. Could the line containing if (/BS.?icon/i.test(src)) return 'BSicon'; in MediaWiki:ProcessFileMoverRequests.js be removed? BSicons no longer require manual replacement for the most part, since uses within diagram templates are repaired by JJMC89 bot (and some uses are with regular file syntax). Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

As far i remember, such replacements caused a mess years ago thus it has been blacklisted. Are you sure we can remove it? --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: If CommonsDelinker uses something like the filemover script, it should be fine now but a few very long pages (or just any page in user space over ~100KB) would need to be blacklisted from the replacement to stop the script from hanging. What was the problem that the replacements ran into? CommonsDelinker only edits entire file names so I'm not sure how most file uses would have been affected. Jc86035 (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: About 450 BSicon rename requests were manually moved to the commands page yesterday by Achim55 and nothing catastrophic happened (it turns out CommonsDelinker does not hang on long pages), so I don't think there should be any issues. Jc86035 (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
@Useddenim, Sameboat, and Tuvalkin: What sort of problems did CommonsDelinker run into? I don't think I was around then. Jc86035 (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  Done by Achim55. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Nominate for deletion not appearing

Is there a admin hanging around? Just can't find a plausible reason why the Nominate for deletion sidebar is not visible on the files, though, on my Userpage it is... Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lotje: This seems to be a pervasive issue, where JavaScript does not load some of the time. If you refresh the page 1-3 times it usually appears. Guanaco (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@Guanaco: You are a star, I'll try immediately and come back to you if it still doesn't work. Cheers. :)Lotje (talk) 04:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
It worked out fine as you will notice. Thanks a lot. Lotje (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Yann (talk) 11:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Jade Leung.jpg

Dear madam/sir,

could an admin please review the proceedings at this deletion discussion. I see no indication that an admin kept this. An admin only deleted the redirect and another admin misinterpreted this as a deletion. Image was renamed and can be found at File:Jade Leung.jpg. I have answered the OTRS request and declined it for the moment [12].

Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

博特

Can someone check what in the world this user is doing? The username '博特' (pinyin bo te) sounds similar to 'bot' BTW. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

No idea, but they are no longer doing it. We have no room for a bot with undisclosed operator. Jcb (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Yann (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

File with unclear copyright status

I am an OTRS agent. I uploaded this photo File:Anne Davies.jpg three days ago as I was handling a photosubmission-queue ticket Ticket:2017090510026961. Now, it turns out that the "file for Anne Davies which we sent you is not the College owned picture but a later file whose exact copyright status is unclear" (Article#17 of the ticket). He has attached a new image to be uploaded. Can we just delete the image, or should I go through the regular DR process? 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I would overwrite, and ask an Admin to revdel the original and this section.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Jeff, thank you for your advice. I uploaded a new version of the file. I kindly ask an admin to delete the original version. Thank you in advance. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  Done Storkk (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Storkk (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Unclosed deletion request from 2008

Could someone handle Commons:Deletion requests/Image:OpenSUSE 102.png, please? Found it while searching for "GPL" in deletion requests. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 10:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I've closed it as   Keep. Guanaco (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
AVRS neglected to transclude it to the current day's page upon reopening it in this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 10:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

wrong alphabetical listing

Hello, hope it's the right place here to post this problem which I've already detected last year; it concerns the Categories "Mountain lakes of Salzburg (state)" and "Mountain lakes of Styria" in the same manner:

If you create a new subcategory (i.e. name of a new lake) in these two categories, it is inevitably listed alphabetically wrong under "M", whatever the initial letter may be; e.g. Graniersee, Schönalmsee, Tiefenbachsee ... they all appear under "M"; similarly (among the Mountain lakes of Styria) the Plannersee is wrongly listed under "M" likewise - obviously caused by some technical error that I am unable to eliminate.

Strongly hope that this can be corrected by technical experts, because otherwise one doesn't dare to add new names of lakes into these two categories any longer in order to avoid a continuing "alphabet-jam", if each new entry lists itself further on under "M". Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Limnologus (talk • contribs) 23:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem is [[Category:Mountain lakes of Salzburg (state)|Mountain lakes of Salzburg]]. The text after the "|" sorts entries under "M". Removing "|Mountain lakes of Salzburg" will cause entries to sort by their names. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Limnologus: For additional information on how category sorting works on Mediawiki wikis like this one, please see m:Help:Category#Sort_order.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Service links to categories: Mountain lakes of Salzburg (state) and Mountain lakes of Styria. — Speravir
Limnologus, in addition to Rodhullandemu’s words cf. my edit in Category:Graniersee, see Special:Diff/207596480/257983493.— Speravir – 01:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Now in German: Alle Namen mit Umlaut sollten einen eigenen Sortierschlüssel erhalten, wo der Umlaut ersetzt wurde, vgl. dazu auch de:Hilfe:Kategorien#3. Regel: 26 Grundbuchstaben. Als Beispiel (wo es mir auffiel): Die Kategorie Märchensee wird bei den steirischen Seen derzeit nach der (wie von dir erwähnt fehlsortierten) Kategorie für den Plannersee einsortiert. Füge zur Korrektur in der Kategorieseite direkt vor die eingetragenen Kategorien ein {{DEFAULTSORT:Marchensee}} ein. Und: Das hääte nach Commons:Help desk (englisch) oder Commons:Forum (deutsch) gehört. — Speravir – 01:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Ahaa, I see... Many thanks for the (rather simple) problem solving - UND für die hilfreiche weitere Aufkla(e)rung! ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Limnologus (talk • contribs) 03:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC) (UTC)

You’re welcome or … Keine Ursache. — Speravir – 02:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Yann (talk) 11:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Yann, also @Storkk and Seb26, just as information: The template {{Section resolved}} has not the effect here, why it is usually set. The SpBot is not active (because the template {{Autoarchive resolved section}} is not inserted), only the ArchiverBot, and sections are archived here 3 days after the latest entry. Of course, it may be, that you just want to indicate that the section is, eehm, resolved, but it seems, template {{Resolved}} would be better suiting. --Speravir 17:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

CSD

Hi, could the BSicon redirects I accidentally created be deleted? I am waiting for their deletion so I can move files over the titles. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  Done --Achim (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

A coin

Good day everyone. I was wondering whether someone could help me determine which tag I should use for uploading this coin (dating to the early modern era). Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

LouisAragon: I moved this question to Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#A_coin, as this is not an administrator-specific question. seb26 (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@Seb26: , ah, I see, thanks! - LouisAragon (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. seb26 (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

UDR

Hi, Could we have more opinions on remaining requests please? In cases when there isn't a consensus, I'd like to have 5-6 opinions. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you please comment on the following requests. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Steinschreiber
  • File:Simonyi-Semadam.jpg
  • File:Coat of arms of Cook Islands.svg
  • File:Inglehart Values Map2.svg
  • Australian aboriginal flags
  • Xonotic Screenshots
  • Agia Fotini bell tower
  • File:Layal Abboud - Plaza Palace Ceremony - Beirut - July 2015 - Lebanon 15 (Cropped).jpg

And could you wait for 24 hours before closing a request? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

DR on made up ND license template

Today I discovered a made up license template: Template:Attribution-Yale-University-Art-Gallery, made to reflect license terms that don't allow (at least not explicitly) creation of derivatives works, and therefor incompatible with COM:L. A few extra eyes on the involved DR would be great. Jcb (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

0 A.D. license violations

The files in these categories need mass-deletions requests, missing permission:

Many of them also lack one or the other license tags (GPLv2+, CC BY-SA 3.0). Nearly all of them lack conveying or offering the GPL'd source code. Some are from official sources, some are not; at least the unofficial ones I checked fail compliance spectacularly.

I can't nominate for mass-deletion easily. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 22:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I probably meant to post to Commons:Village pump. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 22:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Arguably some could also be kept if the screenshot authors agree to license to GPLv3-only and CC BY-SA 4.0, and follow both licenses. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 22:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
    • https://play0ad.com/game-info/project-overview disagrees with you, stating specifically that images from the game are cc-by-sa 3.0 licensed. Who cares if they fail GPL? Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
      • It doesn't disagree, and I don't disagree with the artwork being under CC BY-SA 3.0. Please understand the difference between aggregated and adapted works. The GPL applies: The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does. / The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. Can you please help me create a deletion request? 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 08:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
        • No, I will not help. When the copyright holder of software releases an image (or permits others to release an image) resulting from that software, the license for the software itself, if different, is irrelevant: compliance with either one is sufficient. You might as well argue that a reproduction of text from Commons with mere attribution, hyperlink, etc. is a copyright infringement because it doesn't reproduce the entire text of the GFDL. Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Help with processing duplicates

I've just split File:Tokyometro9000.jpg into two files: File:Tokyometro9000.jpg (original, older version) and File:Tokyometro9000 (2008-02-07).jpg (newer version) and noticed that the second file is duplicate of File:Tokyo Metro 9119 Tamagawa 20070207.jpg. Both files come from the same source, but on Commons they have been tagged with different licence tags – {{GFDL-ja}} vs. {{GFDL}}. Could someone experienced in this area process these duplicates? --jdx Re: 17:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Special:ListFiles/Historypictures

Just trying to put this on someone's radar. Basically all of these that I can tell are marked as own work, which makes the user very old (~140) or we need to either sort through which ones are actually usable and which ones aren't, if we don't want to mass delete them. Looks like they've had a couple dozen images deleted already, so... not sure if someone wants to try to take any additional steps there. TimothyJosephWood 21:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted all of them. When you claim 1880s images, jet airliner photos, organisational logos, and ordinary recent pictures all as your own works, it's clear that you're hoaxing somewhere. None of the logos would be {{PD-textlogo}}, or I'd have exempted them, of course. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Hussain M. Ershad - 2.JPG

Please delete the differing version (overwritten file, unclear license). Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

  Done --jdx Re: 12:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Possible vandalism, or even part of larger picture (act of Ukraine related hybrid war?)

This comment is linked to an error report / file talk created some minutes ago File talk:Kyiv province location map.svg. I came to Commons, as I noticed that all wikipedia articles of Kiev region using location map for this region were showing strange locations points (all locations were changed about 20 km ENE, e.g. towards Moscow...). I checked first some 10 articles (wikipedia in 2 languages), if coordinates were correct. They were OK. Next if the corresponding location map (wikipedia in 4 languages) code was changed. It was not. Then I came to Commons. Article history shows, that in this case User:Artemka has replaced the file Kyiv province location map.svg several times with a file with different dimensions, creating alignment errors. As this file is used very widely through location maps (thousands of articles; weakening the trustworthiness of Wikipedia as source of Ukraine related information), already one disturbance is quite annoying. Several times= vandalism. Has this user been warned/ blocked? If not, please consider!

Kindly note that I have not yet checked if similar disturbance has been done elsewhere (for other regions of Ukraine).

What makes me think that this might be part of larger picture, is the timing and the theme of these changes. All have occurred since early 2014, when the hybrid war came evident e.g. in many places in Eastern Europe. - I wonder if there is some statistics with time axis of vandalism towards Ukraine related files and articles in various Wiki projects? I have noticed, reported and stopped several cases in a couple of wikipedias. To me it is obvious that kind of file changes could be also seen as part of larger and quite systematic disturbance of Ukraine related information. Creation of disturbance/erroneous data is a classical way to change peoples minds. Here, and elsewhere as data amounts grow - typically such changes are hidden as part of tens/ hundreds of other changes, to make detection of most effective disturbances more difficult. But statistic approach / analysis could helps here. I wonder if such analysis has been done?

BR, --Paju~commonswiki (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the file Kyiv province location map.svg (was vandalism), locations maps used in many wikipedias seems to produce correct map locations again. So far I have not observed the similar disturbance with other location maps of regions of Ukraine. --Paju~commonswiki (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Help understanding the recent discussion about enabling MP3s

Hello, there was a recent discussion about supporting MP3 uploads on Commons. I am only now realizing that I should have created a formal RfC, and apologize for that oversight on my part. I humbly ask that a kind willing Commons admin to help make sense of the discussion. I want to make sure I'm interpreting the consensus, if there is one, correctly. If you need to flog me with a trout, I will happily take my punishment. :) CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, In bref, nobody is against enabling MP3, but a number of people, including me, saying to be very cautious, as there is a potential to flood Commons with copyright violations, as we have seen with WP0, and upload-from-Wikipedia. And we don't have the manpower to check and clean hundreds or thousands of suspicious files. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@CKoerner (WMF): (non-admin response/edit conflict) I think there is consensus to enable MP3 uploads if you count both "phased approach" and "right now" comments. Between the two approaches, enabling immediately has more support, but there are objections from admins due to a potential flood of copyvios. Let's play it safe and discuss how to implement phase 0. Guanaco (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Edwin Cardona.jpeg

Please delete the differing version, copyvio from [13] (via Google search of name [14]). GermanJoe (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Has been deleted in the meantime (thanks). GermanJoe (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Long backlogs at CFD

Do we have any process for handling very long backlogs? I ran across a CFD that I filed three years ago (it's had just two edits in the last year, and nothing since June), and it occurs to me that some of these CFDs just linger almost forever — that's definitely not an ideal situation. Nyttend (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Fastily

Just so admins and crats know, Fastily did most of his deletions here, including daily DR closes, using a JavaScript program called "ComAdminAssist" (Admin Érico has seen the tool). Fastily dumped whole categories and whole daily DR pages with this automated deletion tool without ever looking at the images. That's why he had so many errors. I used the same tool, but a bit more carefully. Now he's doing deletions over at Wikipedia...   SnowflakeMAGA (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi INeverCry. Yes, it's true, but it's hardly a secret; a good number of other admins know I used to script deletions and several others also possess copies of said script. And as I recall, that's part of the reason I was desysoped. Regards, FASTILY 03:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
And they trust you as an admin on en.wiki... Years of script batch deletions and uploads of gigabytes of garbage test images... My only point with this is that I'm the best admin Commons has had, and the hardest worker. Your numbers are inflated. Mine are solid. I also wonder about your own alternate admin account, Morning Sunshine...   lNeverCry 05:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping to have seen the last of you two, considering how you both have damaged the project under the cover of hard work. Not yet? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

http-->https

please see Template talk:Geograph#http-->https and Template talk:Geograph-de/en#http-->https TemTem (talk) 11:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Monkey selfies

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No administrative action will be made by discussing this image here. In case any new evidence can be provided which shows that Mr. Slater (or the monkey) owns the copyright, either in the US or the UK, please start a new DR - which is the proper avenue to discuss something like this. The US copyright office have however already stated that animals cannot own copyright, and this court case did not affect the possible copyright status of the file, and therefore leaves it as status quo. It was the former DR's consensus that no significant doubt as to the files public domain status existed to delete the file under COM:PRP. If you want to argue this however, and beat a dead horse, please start a DR rather than reiterate old (since nothing has changed) arguments here. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, they have hit the news. I'm sure those interested have already seen the US, UK and on-wiki coverage. It is hard to list the many places where this has popped up today, and not all have yet been silenced. Commons:Deletion requests/File:2014 crossword final.png and at en:WP: en:Talk:Monkey selfie copyright dispute#Are the "monkey selfies" now subject to copyright?, en:WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Monkey selfies, en:WP:Media copyright questions#Macaque image no longer public domain at least.

These should go. They are a clear breach of COM:PRP, "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." When there are international lawsuits flying about, that is significant doubt. These have to go from Commons. Not because they are a macaque's copyright, not because they are a photographer's copyright, but because there is significant doubt about their freedom. Our rules are based on doubt, not on requiring a court ruling to judge for us. We have a precautionary principle, not a principle of "Information wants to be free". Andy Dingley (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll quote Fae: Folks are terrible at agreeing what "significant" means, including some immovable admins who regularly read it as "any". --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I haven't stopped to count how many international newspapers have run this story today. Just how many is it for that to become a "significant" doubt? Is your point that this is an insignificant doubt? Or that PRP is optional here? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Some people should stop smoking the carpet. There wasn't any judgement. They settled out of court to avoid high lawyer fees. It is kind of him to spare 25% of his (probably huge) gain to greedy PETA folks... Yann (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
"There was any judgement." What does that mean? Do you think there was a judgement? Or there was not a judgement? And for that matter, if your "Some people should stop smoking the carpet." is an allegation of drug use, I will request you most strongly to withdraw that. I would also note that you are quite involved in this already, as the admin who closed the 2015 DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg with the remarkably terse and unexplained, "Copyright claim not valid.". Andy Dingley (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I think the problem is that there is no indication that the court - or anyone involved really - explicitly assigned the copyright to these images to anybody or even hinted at the idea that someone owns copyright to them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Status quo remains, the court case is not really relevant for the copyright status. I suggest @Andy Dingley: reading into relevant legal literature and reading the lawsuit as well. And let me cite two interesting lines from a old ILNIP page (which is still relevant): "In dismissing PETA’s complaint, Judge O. did not rule that Slater owned the copyrights. [...] In dismissing PETA’s complaint, Judge O. did not rule that Slater owned the copyrights in the Monkey Selfies." Last but not least: Hosting the files on commons does not violate COM:PRP in any regard. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The PETA case has always been a red herring. It changes nothing, as it was abandoned before the court ruled. Nor was it likely to change anything, as it was based on the one aspect of law that has been made clear. Once again though, I would ask:
  • Why doesn't PRP apply here?
  • Is there no "significant doubt" remaining over these copyrights?
WMF can't rule on the copyright, as that is not in WMF's capacity. Even a US court can't rule on its status outside the US. Nor has a US court, as yet, ruled on Slater's claim of US copyright. We still face significant doubt over this, and that is why Commons is based on PRP. PRP applies in this case, as in all cases. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
[ec] You've just added that "Hosting the files on commons does not violate COM:PRP in any regard." - Why? "Hosting files" is what Commons does. Of course PRP applies to that. On what basis do you exclude this?
All through this embarassing mess at Commons, admins have given one line or even one word blanket denials of there being any issue. That is not enough. We are supposed to work in an open manner here, not simply defend past decisions just because they are past decisions. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
This has been discussed yet in the relevant DR's, thus i am not going to repeat it. And likely needless to say, i didn't excluded the file from COM:PRP, but i claimed hosting the file here on commons does not violate PRP. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I will change my comment, " admins have given one line or even one word blanket denials, or denials that are not even in comprehensible English". Andy Dingley (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
(ec) Andy Dingley, all these articles are only one thing: public relation and marketing to get more money. All those with open eyes can see that. There is not even one new information about the copyright of these pictures. I would be happy to discuss this subject in my talk page, if you like. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Inappropriate personal attacks

I noticed this edit, which strikes me as an inappropriate personal attack that should be hidden.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  Edit hidden and user blocked - Jcb (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

THE FIRST SPACE SELFIE

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Wrong place for this. Yann (talk) 06:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings.... Not certain where to send this nonearthshattering information.... Both Wiki, newspapers, and others, portray the First Space Selfie as one of the images taken by astronauts in space, such as Buzz Aldrin.

HOWEVER, The first space selfie was taken by three USAF officers in the early 1970s. These top secret cleared men programmed spy satellites of the Corona series. During a required known target test of a new system, likely the KH-8 camera, they programmed the satellite to image the parking lot of the "blue cube" in Sunnyvale California, where they were based.


When the satellite passed overhead, they went out to the parking lot, spread out to create as great a shadow as possible, and were imaged from space by the satellite. No one around them was aware of the secret sat reconn program they worked on.


Once the film spool war recovered from the satellite, they acquired the test image of the parking lot of the Control Facility. They were clearly visible in the image and thus had produced the first space selfie, before the "selfie" had been invented.


I have the details up on my blog site at myconsilience.com. However, I just started the blog and it doesn't seem to be working properly at the moment.


Including in this blog is information on the first humans on earth, imaged from space: October 25, 1963, high school football players in Great Falls Montana. I've compared it with the first human ever imaged, a man having his shoes shined on a street in Paris in 1839. All moving objects in this first daguerrotype by Daguerre, are blurred, but this anonymous man, for whom I feel a strange affection, stood still during the exposure and entered anonymously into human history.

WIKI is the modern equivalent of building the great pyramid so even though the subject matter may only be of interest to a few socially isolated iconoclasts, I'd like WIKI to get it right, and I believe this information is accurate and relevant.

Actually, the first space selfie from the early 1970s should be declassified by now and might be available through NARA.


Best, Richard Bargen, MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor1729 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

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

License review

The CAT:LR backlog is over 1000 again. Every admin/reviewer who sees this, please try to do ten reviews a day. If you hate doing them, five would be good. We can get this down to zero if we work together. Guanaco (talk) 08:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

File:NTR in 2017.jpg

Please delete the file (copyvios, disruptive overwriting and removal of speedy deletion tag by uploader), and warn the uploader. The uploader is blocked for disruptive self-promotion on en-Wiki - see en:User talk:Mujeeb Mughal328. GermanJoe (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleted. PumpkinSky talk 00:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

"Manastary"

Hi, anybody around who is willing to have a look and if need be to replace the manastary into monastery? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lotje: I did what I could. I left alone the Panoramio tags and file contents.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much Jeff! Lotje (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Lotje: You're very welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ 12:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Regarding an old DR

I started Commons:Deletion requests/File:Refinery380.jpg three weeks ago, but seems like it missed everyone's attention. The file is clearly a copyvio. So, can an admin have a look at the DR? I apologize in advance if it is the wrong forum for this request. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleted by Josve05a and closed by Jonatan Svensson Glad.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, Jeff, this is both the same person …   — Speravir – 02:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Speravir: Thank you, but page Josve05a should reveal that information with {{User Alternate Acct}}, another legitimate template listed there, or freeform text.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Happy? Don't see the need to point it out for an account that as never edited and only used to rdirect to main account, as to prevent imposters. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Josve05a: Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The template is not a requirement. Declaration of alternates may be good practice, but on Commons there is no policy to require it, so long as the accounts are never used misleadingly. --Fæ (talk) 06:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Delete EXIF

EXIFs on original files should be enough, and there are wrong information: all EXIFs are related to this or to this file. Could somebody delete the EXIFs? Queryzo (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  •  
    Luisenbad
  •  
    Liesenbrücken
  •  
    Osram-Höfe
  •  
    St.-Joseph-Kirche
  •  
    St.-Joseph-Kirche
  •  
    St.-Joseph-Kirche (s/w)
Is it possible to delete EXIFs? I mean, we can download a copy of the image, edit or remove the EXIF data, and reupload, but (1) anyone with the right software can do that, regardless of admin rights, and (2) I don't know how admin rights can be used to make any modifications to images without deleting or reuploading them. Nyttend (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
As far as I know, MediaWiki software has no method to alter the EXIF of an image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
By the way: This would be a great and useful feature, as often image descriptions are corrected, but wrong Exif data remains embedded in the image (such as wrong coordinates or dates), therefore there is always a risk that wrong data will be extracted again (here or by a re-user). Gestumblindi (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Was die anderen sagen, Queryzo, man kann nur die Dateien herunterladen, die fehlerhaften Exif-Daten entfernen und dann die neue Version mit passendem Kommentar wieder hochladen. — Speravir – 20:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, danke für das Feedback. Ich werde es versuchen. Queryzo (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Categorizing of "Fleurons" related images

Hello, is there someone hanging around who is familiar with these fleurons related to John Mottley? I started categorizing them, but then again, I prefer someone to take a closer look before I continue. Thank you for your time. :) Lotje (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

There is some general guidance at User:Fæ/Project list/Fleuron#Manual categorization. Unless moving non-Fleurons, please keep Fleurons in the Fleuron by year categories while adding them to any categories you think are relevant. Note that searching by ESTCID gives you all book matches, handy if you want to create a category for a book. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Fæ. Lotje (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Bug in renaming?

Since today, many files categorize as Category:Files with no machine-readable license after renaming. They can be removed from that category by removing the space from the redirect, but this really frustrates a regular check of this category. Only today over 400 new files entered this category, of which probably only about 30 should have been in this category. Jcb (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Sounds more of like a bug in the category populating process? I have no idea which part of MediaWiki's code is responsible for this, unfortunately. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb and Zhuyifei1999: The syntax in Jcb's link is dead wrong, the official syntax is to have a space after "#REDIRECT" per mw:Help:Redirects.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
But when I click 'Edittools' in top of the edit window, this has a button to include #REDIRECT[[]] without a space. I don't know whether the removal of the space does the trick or the fact that the page is being edited, but when I remove the space the linked image disappears from the problem cat. Jcb (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Both syntax should be equally valid. MW being unable to exclude #REDIRECT[[...]] from the category should be a bug. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Update: I just tried it and a null-edit also does the trick. The presence or absence of the space plays apparently no role in this issue. Jcb (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb: Please try a purge on the next page with this symptom.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Purge has no effect. Category:Files with no machine-readable license has about 400 pages with this symptom for if you want to try yourself. Jcb (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
593 files null-edited, the category now only includes 229 files. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Now let's hope you will not have to do this all the time. Jcb (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
We have no luck, files keep entering this category when renamed. Jcb (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Could you file a ticket in Phabricator? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but I am sceptical about Phabricator, I have two open reports, here and here, where nothing seems to happen. Jcb (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Task created, see here. Jcb (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Jennifer6969

This new user, an obvious sock, appeared today and among other things replaced Kong of Lasers' user page with a "Fuck You" image, see [15]. The username could also be considered inappropriate (sexual inuendo). On my userpage KoL said he thinks it's a sock of INC and to see User:Kasey1996 and User:Jessy Walters. As I don't do much with this sort of behavior at Commons, I'd appreciate someone else looking into it. PumpkinSky talk 23:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

This was done by User:Doriforth and is probably the same person. PumpkinSky talk 00:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  Done. Both are blocked indefinitely, vandalism is reverted. Taivo (talk) 07:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit requests for protected pages

Could some technically versed admins go through the edit requests in Commons protected edit requests and the subcat, please? On a general note one could check, whether full protection could be decreased for a template. — Speravir – 18:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Request assistance to override my error

Greetings: I made a mistake on a deletion at File:Zachary Gordon 2011 (cropped).jpg. I removed the small, blurry image which now turns out to be the one with the correct license. I apparently misunderstood the deletion request and took the wrong ones. I am requesting the assistance of an administrator who is not involved in this file to revert my errors and restore the small image and remove the larger one on the blue background. Thank you in advance for your help in this regard! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Should be fixed. Эlcobbola talk 17:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Problem with user admin Yann

Here below is the message I wanted to post on Yann's talk page, but he sent me a "last warning" notification as if I was a malfeasant person. Be sure I'm not. And if you have a doubt, check my last edits / imports.


You knocked on my door ? So don't be surprised that I'm here

Hello Yann, as an admin you should be able to communicate, no ? So please don't delete this message. I made the effort to politely start the conversation in French yesterday (because you're French and I'm too), then you erased this entry and started to attack me in English somewhere else. No problem, we can discuss in English (without fighting), just don't make as if I was an intruder, in the actual situation, I think you are out of the point.

  • First, if you don't understand ambigrams, or if you consider this art is for babies, then you should start reading this Wikipedia article (in English or in French) to understand the creation you try to censor perfectly respects the characteristics of a clean ambigram type rotational.

Turn your screen upside down if necessary to check the correspondences of the letters :)

  • Secondly, Yann you seem to have a problem of comprehension of which kind of images is vandalism, and which is not.

If all the images containing the word FUCK were deleted from this platform because considered by you as potentially offensive, how would be illustrated all the associated subjects ? For example this graffiti should it be deleted because attacking the community ? If you think so, you're wrong. And I'm right to believe that this super song Fuck You ♫ by Overkill or this one Fuck you ♪ by Cee Lo Green could have a dedicated illustration on their wikipedia pages, too. This is no matter of copyright here, as you know. The only reason of your abusive deletion request is "attack image", which is false, and other admins agreed (no one supported you). But who feels attacked ? And why ? This idea of war is ridiculously absurd, and if you show such suspicious behavior, let me tell you there are very good reasons for me to investigate, searching why awkwardly nominating an innocent file for deletion, and also searching why refusing the communication, then why spamming my talk page with illegimate templates.

To sum up, I am very disappointed, affected by your strange actions, and require proper explanation. If you don't have better things to do than censoring other's works, start by cleaning your own files, as for example those 4 here, really too similar :

Greetings - Basile Morin (talk) 08:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Basile, though IMO the above linked graffiti (File:Graffiti Ljubljana 167.JPG) has some potential encyclopedic value, requesting it for deletion is not abusive. A DR is just a request/discussion, which allows for discussion and input of opinions from other user and does not automatically result in a deletion. Also, posting a notifcation of a DR[16], besides that it happens automatically, is not spamming. Instead of simpy reverting the notifcation-post you should at least give a sign (for example in your edit summary) of having taken note of it. So, the mutual escalation on your talkpage was quite unnecessary. --Túrelio (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@Túrelio this is not this file (File:Graffiti Ljubljana 167.JPG) but another. The problem is Yann choses the escalation way (very quickly), spamming me with unuseful alarms (not the first one, the others). Moreover, I believe we have the right to remove any warning from our talk pages. See Wikipedia talk page guidelines. Right ? I replied to the DR, then I can remove the template, can't I ? Yann tries to impress me and to intimidate instead of talking. I think he simply abuses. Regards, -Basile Morin (talk) 09:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Basile Morin, a retaliation DR is not acceptable in anyway. Your DR is clearly vandalism. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Is it "clearly vandalism" ? If it was vandalism, certainly this action would be reverted by an administrator.
The page Commons:Vandalism doesn't confirm your allegations, Yann, that makes me think you don't respect the intern procedures, since I received this template yesterday on my talk page saying I will be blocked soon.
You want to block me ? But do you have a good reason to stop my account or is it just because you don't appreciate my work, and have the possibility to block people you don't agree with ?
I tried to explain you (in French) two days ago that this graffiti Fuck School is vandalism in the street, whereas the photo on Wikimedia is not. Then, you immediately nominated the file for deletion as if the photographer was a terrorist or as if the object contained a potential danger for the community ! This chalk writing simply illustrates the society problem of Juvenile delinquency in Slovenia, it is completely absurd to considerate the file as a bomb attacking Wikimedia (see your invoked reason for deletion). All the more so as this Fuck School is paradoxically in good English, lol ! Good luck in your mission - Basile Morin (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I should say that I noticed and am following Yann’s actions in the matter and that it is disappointing to witness such behaviour, complete with its continued repetition and straight-faced justification, especially from a admin and experienced user. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Taking a moment to walk through the history, I agree that the escalation of this was pointless and there was avoidable factual inaccuracy, which I'm not going to dig into as it would be wikilawyering at this point. As for an administrator escalating to a final warning just because someone has removed notices directed at them from their talk page, meh, just presume they read the notices and act accordingly. Responding with increasingly threatening warnings, rather than trying discussion, seems a poor way to handle a user with no history of problems in their account logs, and in less than 600 edits to Commons has actually contributed some useful original photography. Referring to COM:Administrators: Administrators are expected to understand the goals of this project, and be prepared to work constructively with others towards those ends. So let's stick to being constructive as well as mellow and leave final warnings to actual vandals and trolls. --Fæ (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

User:MarianaOchoa and altered pornographic and underage images

I'm going to take the liberty of quoting User:World's Lamest Critic from an EN administrator's talk page, because this is directly relevant to Commons. I nominated the last remaining altered image named below for deletion, but I would imagine Commons administrators might want to take more action. --GRuban (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

In a discussion on ANI about nude swimming, I identified a couple of obviously NSFW images that were related to another editor's question about images of nude children on Wikimedia Commons. Those images were File:Naturist girl.png and File:Naturist young girl.png. Those files were uploaded to Commons by User:MarianaOchoa who is definitely not Mariana Ochoa. That same user also uploaded File:Mariana Ochoa Interview.jpg (archive). It looks like a crop of File:MARIANA OCHOA Y FRANCHELIN - panoramio.jpg but look closely at the panel on the right side of the image where a nude picture has been faintly superimposed. That nude picture of Ochoa comes from the magazine H Para Hombres (apparently also known as Revista H).
Another user on Commons has uploaded an images from the same photo layout but cropped to just show Ochoa's buttocks File:Mexican Woman Buttocks.jpg. That same user, User:Toma'ss, has also uploaded another Ochoa image (File:Woman Mexican.jpg) with a filter used to disguise the source. These are simple copyright violations. More troubling is a composite image featuring the same naked child as in the original photos, File:Two sisters and mother in hospital.jpg (archive).
If you take a look at their (EN) uploads it appears that User:جاي is the same user. User:Miriamos may also be related. I'm sure there are other accounts as well. I was going to start a discussion at ANI, but since it involves cross-wiki activities (and contacting the WMF legal team), I decided that you or your talk page stalkers are better able to deal with it. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Apart from a declined speedy deletion request for a related article, nothing visible has happened here on Wikipedia. Commons admin Jcb has deleted the images uploaded by User:Toma'ss as part of a clean up of images lacking permission. The account was not blocked. If I have time later I will start a discussion on ANI to deal with the sockpuppetry and image uploads. Considering the context, I was hoping to avoid that and I am disappointed that no one acted on this report. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I can't see the images in question, but not all images of nude children qualify as child pornography. A scene of James Bond where Bond is showering in a street and we get a sideway glance of a nude kid isn't child porn at all. A close up of genitalia in a medical journal would be a mite more questionable but also not child porn. A nude kid in an erotic context would be very questionable. What are we dealing with here? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
There are archive links to the images in this discussion if you want to see exactly what we are talking about. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

This thread can be closed, per "Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead" at the head of this noticeboard. As has been said, photographs of nudity are potentially in-scope if educational, historic or cultural value can be justified. Anyone in doubt with regard to images of children would be wise to avoid uploading, downloading or even drawing public attention to images that may be illegal in their country of residence. --Fæ (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I quite deliberately did not say the images were child pornography when I started that discussion on Wikipedia. If you think the images should be considered as child pornography, please go ahead and contact whoever it is that gets contacted about that. I'm sure the report will mean more coming from a Commons admin like you than it would coming from me. Thank you. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Pardon, Fae, I think you misread. The images are gone; Jcb deleted them. Whether or not they were child pornography, they are no longer the immediate issue. The user, however, who edited together pornographic images (or at least nude and underage nude images), with free images, and reuploaded them under deceptive titles, remains, possibly under several incarnations. --GRuban (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not appreciate that my family's brasão was in black when I gave it in color in accordance with its conception.

Hello hereabove is the picture you published for my family's brasão in black when a have given the right look in colors which is also to be seen by https://www.geni.com/people/Manuel-Gomes-de-Carvalho-1-bar%C3%A3o-do-Amparo/6000000022134070556 And too File:Brasao_Amparo.jpg. I cannot copy here the original jpg, if you want it, please let me have a mail address to send it. I hope your friendship for having my brasão in respect of its origine. Have a great day. C. gielen de Carvalho — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.57.121.127 (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Both versions would be acceptable on Commons, assuming they are properly licenced; as to which of them is used in articles elsewhere, that's a matter for the editors of those pages. I'd advise you just change to your preferred version and see if anyone objects. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Problem with File:Brasao_Amparo.jpg, is it's size. It is very small and blurry. C. gielen de Carvalho, if you have bigger version please upload it to replace File:Brasao_Amparo.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarekt (talk • contribs) 15:29 26 sep 2017 (UTC)

bit of a mix-up with file names

Hi, so at the zoo today I found out that one of the Syrian brown bears is actually a hybrid of Syrian and brown (which is why he is so much bigger than the rest), I moved (&replaced) the images of him to names of Syrian brown bear hybrid for more correct ID, and now I have been left with a redirect at File:Syrian brown bear hybrid 01.jpg and a set of files named Syrian brown bear hybrid 0X.jpg starting at 02 (instead of 01). Is it possible to delete the redirect and move all of them down one (02-->01, 03-->02, etc.)? The files in question: File:Syrian brown bear hybrid 02.jpg, File:Syrian brown bear hybrid 03.jpg, File:Syrian brown bear hybrid 04.jpg, File:Syrian brown bear hybrid 05.jpg. Thanks, --SuperJew (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Please delete Category:Images from Geograph Britain and Ireland

Please could the category page at Category:Images from Geograph Britain and Ireland be deleted? I'm trying to rename Category:Images from the Geograph British Isles project to that name, but the existing page means it won't work, and my attempt at renaming the existing page out of the way has just made things worse. --bjh21 (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

You seriously propose moving 1,784,951 files? I wouldn't think that's a good thing to do. Much easier to move the files already in Category:Images from Geograph Britain and Ireland back to Category:Images from the Geograph British Isles project and make the first category a redirect to the second. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
We will see, the main mass is categorized per template. I guess tomorrow the count is much lower. -- User: Perhelion 23:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Is that the biggest category? Artix Kreiger (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Any project moving or editing over a million files should have a project page or equivalent, just to ensure there is some consultation over the reasons for making the changes and that no issues have been raised. If this exists it would be useful to link to it. This does not happen for most maintenance tasks as they are established and non-controversial so the consensus behind it is implicit. --Fæ (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, I created a CfD: here. I advertised it in the Village Pump: here and left it open for a month but got only one (favourable) response. This appeared at the time to be the required procedure for moving a category. With two exceptions (which I'll fix in a moment), all files in the category are placed there by one of two templates, {{Geograph}} and {{Also geograph}}, so the number of actual edits needed is tiny; we should just need to wait for the pages to be regenerated.
If the consultation was inadequate, then obviously an admin should revert the changes to {{Geograph}} so that the files will move back to the old category. I'm sorry to have caused so much disruption. --bjh21 (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
The level of consultation was fine. --Fæ (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I just realised that I could just have used {{Speedydelete}}. I'd forgotten that it was available as an alternative to a DR. So I've done that. --bjh21 (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Asashio en Chihaya afgemeerd op berth S in Kure, -3 mei 2011 a.jpg

I'm signing out now but if anyone can figure out the license of this image from 2011 from the defunct picasa website, please feel free to mark it. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

copyright status of File:I own the copyright to this image.jpg

This image is found here: http://visitoldtownalbuquerque.com/

In fact this is the second time the user uploads this image. Previously it was uploaded as File:OFFICIAL MAP OF OLD TOWN.jpg when I requested speedy deletion, but it's uploaded again today.

So I went to the website and did a quick facebook chat with them (the Albuquerque Old Town website). They did confirm the uploader is the owner of image:

Yes good morning. The Wikipedia user who Is currently using the name INTERNETPERSON is the owner.

Furthermore this is not an association map, website, etc. this is the actual current and accurate information on the area in map form and in links and words which were added by that user.

From what I see merely for the copyright status, the image may still need to be released properly under a compatible license, as it's on other website that doesn't state the image is under cc-by-sa before it got uploaded here. I think I have to leave this to someone capable to reach out to appropriate persons if there is the need. But if the current status if fine with Commons, please let me know too. Thanks. -★- PlyrStar93. →Message me. ← 14:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Marked as copyright violation. — Speravir – 18:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
PlyrStar93, if you already had contact with them it would be the best to point them directly to Commons:Licensing and Commons:OTRS. And also that the image does not need to be uploaded again and again, because it can undeleted, when a valid permission was given (though at least the second filename is inappropriate). — Speravir – 18:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
File deleted --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the explanation, Speravir. Then it will be INTERNETPERSON who has to contact OTRS for the licensing issues. The user reached out to me on enwiki because I tagged their file as copyvio, so I figured I'd better ask here first and ping the user. -★- PlyrStar93. →Message me. ← 18:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Category name "dispute"

Hey there,

I created a category name and there has been some discussion about it. How do we go about making a decision/renaming the category name and closing the discussion? The discussion is here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2017/04/Category:World_War_1_Colour_photos#Category%3AWorld_War_1_Colour_photos

I'm fine with renaming it to "Colour images relating to World War I" or even something else as long as the words colour, World War I, and images or pictures is in the category name.

I appreciate your help! (Would you mind emailing me directly to let me know you've replied? I'm not on this site every day. Thanks!)

Ginger Monette <email redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catfishmo (talk • contribs)

Commons:Deletion requests/2017/09/28

Hi there. There is something wrong with the structure of Commons:Deletion requests today. Thanks for fixing it. --E4024 (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Or is it my browser? Am I the only one that sees a strange setup? Sysops? --E4024 (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
@Rillke: What's going on here? The problem is caused by the TOC in Commons:Deletion requests/mobile tracking. But how come these DRs land in that page in the first place? They should be added to the day pages instead. Jcb (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I have at least fixed the TOC for now. Jcb (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Still open edit requests

Thanks to Perhelion and Hedwig in Washington (as far as I noticed) a lot edit requests are solved, but some are still open; the following should be easy in my opinion (links to talk pages with requests):

The request in Module talk:I18n/complex date for changing (or adding?) Norwegian strings (section 15 in the moment) is easy from a technical point of view, but quite some work, and there is another issue: At least with {{LangSwitch}} the language abbreviation for Norsk Bokmal is no, not nb like in the request (nn for Nynorsk is right), and now we have in this module strings with no and nb. See also my reaction to the request and the answer. — Speravir – 22:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User:CommonsDelinker/commands/filemovers

Hi, could an admin please move the filemover CommonsDelinker requests to the main commands page? I added about 8,000 BSicon redirect replacement requests (based on User:JJMC89 bot/report/BSicons/redirects), making the page 800KB long, and the long edit time might make some filemovers think the file move script isn't working. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:James Kriegsmann

Hi, anybody hanging around to give me some advise? I was wondering if it would make sense to create a subcategory Category:Photographs by James J. Kriegsmann, as I did a minute ago. Thank you for your time :) Lotje (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lotje: I don't see a need, as there are no photos of him or selfies to disambiguate.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Selfies? I hope not... :) Thanks Jeff G. Lotje (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Non-admin question: how about renaming the category instead? I keep seeing subcats of cats like "Photographs by <name>" where the subcats don't say "Photographs by" but just have the name, and I think it's a problem. A cat like Category:James Kriegsmann could contain photos of the photographer, even if we don't have any right now. If we do get images of the photographer or other things related to him, then the cat would no longer belong under a "Photographs by" cat. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

How does an IP use Cat-a-lot?

90.191.76.154

This ip is using it. I thought it was limited to users. Artix Kreiger (talk) 11:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Like every script Cat-a-Lot can be started directly. For some scripts there is even such an opportunity given on their help page. — Speravir – 18:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
@Speravir and Artix Kreiger: Good question, the IP must be used an own/old version of Cat-a-lot. The actual version not allowed it. See MediaWiki talk:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js #Not working if loaded via "withJS" -- User: Perhelion 19:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Oops. — Speravir – 20:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
You could also type in javascript:mw.loader.load(...); in the URL bar to run a script on the current page. It might be possible for an IP to start Cat-a-lot this way, or the IP could install w:Greasemonkey. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

US Monuments notice page has error text

The US Monuments contest page currently says:

Noone is to contribute to the project by uploading photos they've taken of registered cultural and historical sites throughout the United States will be fined for changing things witb out licsnce not even tbe Adminastor or FBI. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.238.203.73 (talk) 02:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It was reverted yesterday as vandalism less then a one hour from someone vandalizing the page. Thank you Sixflashphoto (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status of File:Cain Sighting in Ephraim Utah.jpg

File states own work by the person uploading it but the photograph is taken by someone else who I think might even be dead. Doug Weller (talk) 09:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

A Google search for that name and location does suggest the photographer is likely deceased, if it's the same person. It's possible a lawful heir uploaded it, but we need OTRS permission. Guanaco (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Just to point out that I nominated the file for deletion per our precautionary principle. Thank you. Wikicology (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

special:Contributions/A Clowd in Trousers

this might be INeverCry— Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.35.73.190 (talk • contribs)

  Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Neutral edit protected

remove
|zh = 中立
and add
|zh-hans = 中立
|zh-hant = 中立
--A2093064 (talk) 03:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


Template:Support remove
|zh = 支持
and add
|zh-hans = 支持
|zh-hant = 支持
--A2093064 (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Vote delete remove |zh = 删除and add |zh-hans = 删除
|zh-hant = 刪除--A2093064 (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jarekt: This is a regression from the recent move from Module:Fallbacklist to mw.language.getFallbacksFor, and "zh-hans" no longer falls back to "zh". Any ideas for a workaround? Or should we move "zh" to "zh-hans" (or "zh-hant", when appropriate, but "zh-hans" does not fallback to "zh-hant", only the other way around) for all instances of fallback? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 
MediaWiki fallback chains
Yes we are using MediaWiki fallback chain now so we might have to rearrange some templates. In case of Chinese language according to the diagram on the right everything falls back onto zh-hans so Chinese translations that are the same in many variants should use that variant. I changed Template:Neutral and it seems to work:
  • {{Neutral|lang=zh-hans}} gives "  中立"
  • {{Neutral|lang=zh-hant}} gives "  中立"
  • {{Neutral|lang=zh}} gives "  中立"
--Jarekt (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jarekt: Are you suggesting that we should go through all direct transclusions of autotranslate and "zh" => "zh-hans" when appropriate/necessary? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Zhuyifei1999, in MediaWiki fallback chain "zh-hans" seem to be the fallback for all other languages in "zh" cluster. So I would suggest to look at Chinese translations using {{Autotranslate}} and {{tl|LangSwitch) and if what is now under zh is correct in simplified Chinese than I would change the language from "zh" to "zh-hans". If it is not valid in simplified Chinese than I would suggest to add it. I looked at all the templates in Category:Polling templates and most had both "zh-hans" and "zh-hant" version, which I guess is the optimal solution. --Jarekt (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

PD-UKGov

Hi, per Template_talk:PD-UKGov#Proposed_amendments_to_template_text I made a request for amendment at this protected template, per discussions with User:Nikkimaria at Wikipedia’s Featured Article Candidates, but have heard nothing for two months. It is a simple amendment to reflect UK Crown Copyright more broadly than the current template does. Grateful if any admins could come and take a look. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

When I upload an image (own work) that I have amended, the new image displayed is the same as the previous one.

I have uploaded a new version of a map I created (CC0) and previously successfully uploaded: File:Map_of_Eyre_Peninsula_railway_lines_in_2017.jpg

The problem is that the new image is not displayed -- only the previous one again, along with the new note I wrote.

After clicking on the button worded "Replace this image" or words to that effect, I was taken to the Upload page (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Map_of_Eyre_Peninsula_railway_lines_in_2017.jpg&wpForReUpload=1) » Source file » Selected file, then confirmed file name (same as before). I wrote a note about the file changes then clicked the "Upload file" button.

I have triple-checked (and got a family member to independently verify) that I am not re-uploading the previous image.

I've read Commons:Overwriting existing files.

I am using macOS 10.12.5 and Mozilla Firefox v55.0.3.

I'd appreciate the repeated image being deleted but more importantly some clues as to what might be going wrong with the upload. Sincerely,SCHolar44 (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@SCHolar44: Try pressing CTRL-F5 or CTRL-ALT-R to refresh the page and bypass your cache. Guanaco (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Guanaco. Oldest trick in the book, of course, but I completely forgot about it. Fixed! And I resolve not to upload late at night! If you (or another administrator) could remove the wrongly duplicated image Map_of_Eyre_Peninsula_railway_lines_in_2017.jpg time-stamped "21:18, 2 October 2017" that would be advantageous. SCHolar44 (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

  Done Duplicate old revisions deleted. Guanaco (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

watchlist limited to 250 entries

Hello, not sure if its been noticed, but watch lists are now limited to 250 entries. This can be an issue if someone does a mass edit of many files at once. Could this be addressed? Previously (a month or so ago, I think), the watchlist solely showed edits within a time range, with no limit on amount. Famartin (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting it, I certainly had not noticed. It's been poorly implemented as there is no indication that the watchlist returned is truncated and there's no "continue" type option to see the rest. I'd call that a bug but I'm not going to pursue it on Phabricator myself as I've got volunteer fatigue on this issue. The relevant devs know it's a problem and my 2p worth would be unlikely to get it more prioritized.
By the way, using a bit of API code the Pywikibot iterator for the watchlist does work, though with false starts/restarts due to time-outs (internal_api_error_DBQueryTimeoutError). Using that, I can manipulate many thousands of items on my watchlist, but it's not a sharable solution for anyone else. --Fæ (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
The watchlist limit is specified in your preferences. The maximum has been 1000 entries for as long as I can remember, and that hasn't changed as far as I can see. If I specify a sufficiently long period of time to display and inclusive filtering rules, I get 1000 entries. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I was convinced the watchlist used to consistently let you view the next page of matches, rather than truncating without showing any options. Maybe the state machine for the watchlist is more complex than I thought. --Fæ (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Inactivity run for August-September 2017 is now finished

Hi everyone! This is just to let you know that the admin inactivity run for August-September 2017 has now been closed (admittedly, with quite some delay). Five users: @Alison, @Beria, @M0tty, @Sandstein and @Siebrand have had their admin privileges removed on Meta today as a result of their inactivity. Please join me here in thanking all of them for their involvement as admins and for their excellent service to our community over so many years. Thank you, and here's to hope we'll see you active again soon! odder (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)‎

Alison, Beria, M0tty, Sandstein, Siebrand: this humble user can only repeat what odder expressed: thank you all for your excellent service over so many years. Thank you. Lotje (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you all for your service. @Odder: I think you meant to sign that "22:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)‎".   — Jeff G. ツ 03:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff: I did! Thanks :-) odder (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Guanaco (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_65&oldid=371841365"