Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 70

File:Толстоклювая лазоревая сорока.jpg

Does anyone feel comfortable reviewing this image 3 years after it was reviewed? The person who made this request made a comment and I don't know if this image is free as of 2018. The original reviewer is now banned from WikiCommons. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion the file does not need license review. The license was once reviewed, that's enough. Taivo (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

 Info Unfortunately, 500px removed all support for Creative Commons licenses without notice and without any opportunity to export them to a site that still supports CC. So the only evidence of permission for 500px images will be license reviews. The reviewer was INeverCry, whose indefinite block and global ban did not involve any licensing issues. In general, there's no reason to question his honesty or diligence in reviewing licenses. Guanaco (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi and FireFeather: It is possible INeverCry made a mistake. Can you elaborate about the possible BY-NC license? Guanaco (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't remain the screen shot of the photo with that label. I have no evidence about BY-NC thing now, sorry.-- FireFeather (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Wait, look what I found: https://web.archive.org/web/20180701013244/https://500px.com/photo/62861531/urocissa-caerulea-by-jimmy-kao see its webpage source code (find "BY-NC").-- FireFeather (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

But I'm not sure if it means that photo is BY-NC...orz -- FireFeather (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

That same source also mentions every other Creative Commons license under the sun, and the version archived is from just a couple of weeks ago, which is not very useful. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thank You for your help Taivo. I don't doubt the reviewer's work before he was banned but needed to be sure. Goodbye, --Leoboudv (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

UploadWizard isn't clear enough about re-uploading

I've posted a proposal at Commons:Village pump/Proposals to help new users understand they shouldn't re-upload images. Any input there would be appreciated. Guanaco (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Anybody around that speaks Arabic?

And want to have a chat with User:عمري اميمة? They've uploaded 17 files so far today, and all of them have been copyrighted stills from a cartoon, w:My Daddy Long Legs. GMG^talk 19:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo:  Done blocked for a month by @Elcobbola.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 21:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: How I can help? --Alaa :)..! 16:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

User:علاء, Not sure if they're still here, or if they might come back after their block. Was hoping someone was around that could leave more than a template in case it would help any. GMG^talk 16:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Mardetanha might be able to tell you. Also Category:User ar-4 Lotje (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I sent a clarification in his arwiki talk page --Alaa :)..! 07:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:علاء. May or may not make a difference. I figured they stuck around for a couple months on ar.wiki without getting any warnings. So hopefully it's just a misunderstanding and they're open to learning from it. GMG^talk 12:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion help

I am sorry in advance to bother the admins but it would be great if an admin could have a look at and decide the deletion request here please. I had originally intended this to be a speedy deletion but had unwittingly placed the pictures for the regular nomination. I was told in the help desk that an admin would do a speedy close and delete. I would not have minded waiting, but these images are certainly copyright violations, and are used in a high-traffic and high-controversy article which has been plagued by socks and other disruptions. Removing them quickly would help to expedite cleanup and avoid problems in the article. Thank you for your help. BreadBuddy (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose speedy deletion here. Your deletion rationale appears to be correct, but it's fairly complex and could be overturned by presenting evidence that any of these were published during the photographer's lifetime. It's better to wait and allow people to comment. If there is any ongoing sockpuppetry, that should be addressed with blocks and page protections. If sockpuppets are active on Commons, you can report them here and we'll investigate. Guanaco (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Guanaco: Thank you for the response. So I know that deletion discussions are supposed to be closed seven days from the date of nomination. If it is closed does that mean that the images will be deleted by the seventh day? Around when do these images typically get deleted? I’d ideally not like to put the deletion on wait for weeks due to the fact that its unlikely that we’ll find any evidence of publication. BreadBuddy (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@BreadBuddy: If there aren't any objections, I'd expect this one to be closed on day seven or eight. Guanaco (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

 Comment Actually, there is no reason to delete these files. These are images from India from 1914, and in that case, the copyright duration is counted from the date of creation. So these went into the public domain in 1965, and are also free of URAA. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Yann: I've explained more in the deletion request, but even if that were the case, commons requires files to be restriction free in both India and the United States if they are to be kept. The files fail copyright in the U.S because they were created before 1978, but published in the online USC archives (which has to be sometime for sure after 1989 because the www had not existed before that). Basel Mission claims copyright on them per this criteria. BreadBuddy (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Potd correction

Please wikify the today's English description of Potd, see Template talk:Potd/2018-07-22 (en). --ŠJů (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done by Jon Kolbert. --jdx ^Re: 06:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Category Sort Keys

Hey, I have a little "dispute" with another user on how to categorize. We are both active in photographing live music events. He additionally edits and categorizes existing photos, a lot of them - great work so far. We try to give every single show an own category, for festival shows they are named like "Group - Event". This category is subcat of the group's category and the event's category. They should have a sortkey for that. A perfectly styled cat would look like:
[[Category:Band|Event]] [[Category:Event|Band]]
but his look like
[[Category:Band| Event]] [[Category:Event|Band]]
notice the whitespace! This shoots the sortation. Would it be better to delete these whitespaces or - because of the overwhelming count of cats containing them - let them be there? --LeoDE (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• That space will sort the subcat at the very beggining of the parent cat index list, instead of under any of its initial letter headings. Depending on how the parent category and its other subcats are organized, one of you two is right. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Exactly that is what happens. Some groups or artists are shot over 20 times and have over twenty subcats for concerts (Which is great because you can get images per year and per country) the way the other user does this, all twenty subcats are sorted at the top and important subcats like "Members of ..." are moved somewher else than the top --LeoDE (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@LeoDE: Who is doing that?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to blame someone for his otherwise great work and therefore would like to not call him out - if possible --LeoDE (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi all.

When I started sorting these categories I didn't put any sortkey until I found many other sorted with a space so I continued with this this 'blank' to keep this harmonization. Some months ago another user -I don't rember who- moved many of these cat's to Category:Concerts by musician or musical group. It was in my projects to continue his sorting but I temporarily have to stop Commons for personnal reasons.

I really don't know what is boring LeoDE with this kind of sortkey but it's not the first time some users of the German Project "Festivalsommer" are trying to impose their own way of sorting without following what is yet done just because that doesn't match with what festivals organizers are expecting. So they accused me of war edits and treat me as a vandal bet never went at the village pump (or here) to ask if they're right or not. And LeoDE doesn't want to ping me! WHY?????

All these wars and hypocrisy and their lack of politeness (never write "hello, please, or thanks" -I hate that!) "make me poo" and I think I'll give up all my Commons actions because my patience is out... I'm not their wipping boy! WW2 is over!

LW² \m/ ^{(Lie ² me...)} 01:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey @Llann Wé²: , @Jeff G.: , I've ...

• ... always been polite to you
• ... asked you nicely and explained why
• ... askey you again as you continued and asked on what your opinion and reasons for that are
• ... stated why I did not mention you here

and now you say I've been unpolite, see you as our "wipping boy", and so on? Really? I'm sorry, but I'm not gonna kiss your feet! I've often said that I am actually happy that we have users like you that give a lot of their time and put a lot of effort into this! And you are unhappy on how we treat you? Really?

So, you are using a feature in a way that goes against how this feature is thougt to be used - I've asked you why, and you did not respond. I've wanted clarity whether changing all these things and continuing without whitespace would be correct or just continuing like you did, I see nothing wrong there - On the contrary, I didn't want to start a big argue and maybe and edit war without knowing what would be best.

So, last time I ask you personally: Why are you using the whitespaces, what are your reasons aside „There's a lot of categories doing it that way“? Best regards from Germany and a happy sunday evening, LeoDE (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Videoplasty

Hi, can anybody take care that Videoplasty is being attended in a constructive way? They have a private problem caused by their contributions, see here. I am neutral how to handle a possible request for courtesy deletion, but in the meantime they are at risk of being a victim of confusion wilfully caused by Slowking4, see here. I will be unable to attend the case due to IRL travel plans. Jcb (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

just change the license to GFDL 1.2 only i.e. User:Fir0002/credits modify for your account and add a link to your website. use visualfilechange to mass change the licenses. the obfuscation will drive people to your website. or you could write a sternly worded letter to OTRS about how the agent did not have permission to release the corporate copyright. that will trigger a com:PRP panic. expect no sympathy from the ideologues here. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 19:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Videoplasty, do not follow the ideas of Slowking4! It's not allowed to change a CC license into GFDL 1.2. Slowking4 knows that, their apparent purpose is to cause confusion. Don't listen to this user ever. Jcb (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Slowking4, gaming the system with their GFDL with CC-NC license.. Don't follow their advice indeed. @Donald Trung: This is exactly what I've been talking about. (although their dealing with OTRS should have somewhat forced them to read the license?) - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I moved the above from the Village Pump discussion because it needs to be absolutely clear this is disruptive, dishonest, and a totally unacceptable approach. Frankly, using GFDL+NC for new works has no place at all here, but to encourage a new user to use VisualFileChange to mass change the licenses...lie to OTRS... An experienced user as Slowking4 knows better. I nearly blocked him for this, but I held back. I'm appalled, and I hope others agree and carry out a block. Guanaco (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I am in the same boat. My cursor already hovered above the block button, especially since while Slowking4 does valuable work in the file and category name spaces, their contributions to discussions have been nothing but destructive sarcasm. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support block - Why would you say that ? ..... CC Licences are irrevocable - The CC website states this and so do we..... So to encourage users to lie like this is simply a slap in the face to us as a whole,

Personally I think they should be blocked if not for trolling than for clearly deceptive behavhour ..... You can't go around telling people that as like the above have said it causes unnecessary confusion. –Davey2010^Talk 21:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

*Support NAMESPACE and USERTALK ban as per below - Although never stated I was supporting a temporary block not an indef one ..... Indef is bloody OTT for something like a silly comment!, Anyway I support a namespace and usertalk ban as they can easily post on talkpages ? ..... Only exception to the userspace ban is DR/CFD notices .... –Davey2010^Talk 02:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I also support a block for Slowking4. (Side note: I am glad to see that a few users are already trying to help Videoplasty in a constructive way) - Jcb (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

clearly the newbie made a good faith error in licensing. the fact that you will gracelessly rub their nose in it is instructive. the fact that the community has grandfathered several loopholes that uploaders with their concerns, have used to game the system is also instructive. i guess we need to be silent around the kids. and the fact is admins have overturned previous OTRS based on sharp emails in that opaque process. why wouldn't you be forthright about that fact? do you want to help people or tell them no? i was trying to keep the discussion on wiki, but i can continue off, if you prefer. go ahead and block me, i need the time-out. might want to have a rationale, other than "appalled at the insouciant spilling the beans" Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Atleast to my knowledge good faith or not we never change licences or delete images at their request - Without sounding harsh the uploader should've done their research before uploading here, If we gave in to everyone potentially we would never have any images here, Again to my knowledge once an image is uploaded it generally stays here forever unless it's out of scope in which case sure it's deleted but like I said we don't delete because they've changed their mind. –Davey2010^Talk 23:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I think Jcb gave a good explanation of why we especially should not delete files in cases such as this: The problem is, if you release your files into a free license, this is irrevocable. Reusers, possibly outside Wikimedia/Wikipedia, must be able to trust that the free content they are using will remain free forever. If we delete the files from our servers, it will be hard for possible reusers to provide evidence that the files they are using are really free. I am not accusing you of anything, but I have seen situations in the past where uploaders somehow got their contributions deleted from our servers and then started to send high bills to reusers, accusing them of copyright violation. The uploader confirmed that the images have been reused under the CC license, so this is a real risk. Providing accurate, stable copyright information is one of the critical goals of Commons, and we shouldn't break this without a very good reason. Guanaco (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not about being "silent around the kids". Long-term, subtle harassment has sometimes been successful in driving an adversary off the wiki. License laundering images can cause them to be kept indefinitely. It's wrong to encourage bad behavior, even if such methods achieve some goal. Guanaco (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

"Atleast to my knowledge good faith or not we never change licences or delete images at their request"

There is a 7-day courtesy deletion for unused content. Licenses could always be changed by the author to more permissive ones (like changing BY-SA to BY). - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 01:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Support block for Slowking4. See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 68#Slowking4.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 01:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• I support a block for Slowking4. When interacting with other users on these forums, I have only ever seen negative and damaging contributions (trolling). The above "advice" to lie and modify licence in an illegal manner is unacceptable on Commons. Totally against our mission. -- Colin (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Support Indef. I hate to see good faith contributors blocked but good faith contributions does not compensate for bad behavior. Immediately indef this user now. Regards. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 15:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• I would also support an indef block for Slowking4. Every time I read one of his comments they are a net negative. Plus people who give the kind of advice he did to new users cannot be trusted to interact with other users. Natuur12 (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Natuur12, Guanaco, and Slowking4: I don't know what (if any) options would exist or are desirable, but it may be worth considering to give Slowking4 a topic or namespace ban instead because there are (as far as I know) no issues with their uploads? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

exactly. i was going to say as far as "net negative," i have more edits that Natuur12, and images in use. he is deleting images, so who is the negative? i win awards for interacting with users.

admins should be aware of the low reputation of the commons - ask people at wikimania, i have, it is at best "gritted teeth." i would congratulate you on voting on blocks rather than the INeverCry method of indef on sight. but as you know, you do not have a civility standard of practice, or history of civility enforcement, so it is hard to have much credibility. it will be hard not to have the appearance of a "censorship block" rather than a disruption, since nothing has been disrupted other than egos. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 21:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Support Indef, or at absolute minimum a namespace ban. Useful contributions in file and category space do not give anyone the rights to give deliberately false information, constantly lob unsolicited insults, butt into discussions for the sole purpose of disrupting them, and otherwise attempt to undermine Commons on noticeboards. (This is also a user who continues to use sockpuppets on enwiki, and whose signature here celebrates a banned Commons sockpuppeteer / community-banned enwiki user - while we do not block for actions on other wikis, it certainly sheds light on their behavior and attitudes.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
•  Support namespace ban. We should prefer the least restrictive option that solves the problem. I don't see much in the way of argument or evidence to suggest that won't. GMG^talk 01:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment Now Slowking4 appears to be accusing Yann of socking in this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment i would ask you not to misrepresent my writing, what i said was: he had recently acted just like a indef blocked admin. for me that is worse than socking. after all socks are a dime a dozen around here, but blocked admins are so rare, that people might want to avoid their behavior, if they were really precautionary. if you want to know who i think the INC socks are, just look at the newbies who behave like him and say "we all specialize in different actions." Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 22:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Support a block. I tried to reach out to him, but sadly it didn't work. I am an incurable optimist, so I still hope some behaviour change is possible. But for that, willingness is necessary. *sigh* Yann (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
• I'd say yes for a block, basically per Pi.1415926535. — regards, Revi 14:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

On GFDL 1.2 and deletions

Years ago I tried to get GDFL banned for all new uploads of photographs. The proposal failed because too many people voted "a free licence is a free licence" -- people would rather have images that can't realistically be used outside of Wikipedia, than care about encouraging images that really a free for anyone to use for any purpose (our mission). When questioned, those who used such licences all would have preferred that Wikipedia was a "free to view" website than a "free content" website -- they wanted to have their images on Wikipedia but not for anyone else to use them. They have nearly all left WP/Commons anyway. WM Austria were particularly bad offenders and even used WMF funds to generate photos that had GFDL 1.2 only licences.

Wrt concern that we need to retain images on our servers in order to protect re-users in case anyone questions their free licence, I don't actually believe that should be our concern. Anyone re-using content from a user-generated website like this is taking a risk and they should protect themselves by taking a copy of the source page. Even if content were deleted, I assume an admin could verify the page existed with a given licence should the matter come to court. If someone re-uses content that genuinely has a free licence, and was published here at some point, then the copyright owner would need to lie in court to claim it wasn't actually ever licensed freely. So I don't think that argument should ever form the basis of a keep vote on a DR (or equivalent discussion). -- Colin (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, Slowking4 often actually has good points. I agree with the whole GFDL thing, for example, and I am against copyright panic. But instead of criticizing these things in a constructive manner or actually trying to do something about it, they resort to scathing sarcasm and blaming the evil admin cabal. That does not help their point.

That said, maybe it's time for another try to get GFDL-only uploads banned? Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I would be interested in reading such a proposal and would be highly inclined to vote for it. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

here you go Commons:Requests_for_comment/AppropriatelyLicensed. i will support, but i doubt you have a consensus, but maybe minds have changed. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

That proposal was started by me as a discussion. And gathered quite a number of supportive comments before someone used a voting template the next day. After that, it just went to shit, with polarised sound-bite drive-by voting. Many votes demonstrated a frustrating lack of clue about how licences worked, including from some admins. We had "slippery slope" arguments, and many put forward arguments that would also be an argument for supporting -NC or -ND licences too. Basically those who want to hoover up as many images as they can without any concern about re-use outside of Wikipedia. Or those who don't actually want to share their images. Although many who used e.g. GFDL-only have left, I don't think this culture of grabbing everything we can has changed -- we see it when people make ridiculous "in scope" arguments like "could be used for an image of a person with brown hair" to justify pretty much any picture of a person. We also sometimes see it when showing an intolerance towards creators who regret their licence choice. I recall one well-known-now-globally-banned-admin bullying a 14-year-old boy over their photos that they regretted uploading. If such a proposal was to be restarted, you'd have to engage with some of the opponents who are still active and who are influential, to see if they have changed their minds, or would accept a modification. The previous attempt was very much a demonstration (repeated many times since as we never learn) that voting on a wiki is a stupid way to discuss something. -- Colin (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I read though that whole proposal. It was a well thought out proposal that should have passed 5 years ago. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

maybe you should propose it up again, for a six month consensus building, tagging all the anti's. we have the passage of time, and a new selling point: you have a user advising GLAMs to use GFDL 1.2/CC-NC as the functional equivalent of a "wikipedia only + NC" license. after all alamy has not stolen a GFDL image yet. (the GLAMs are astonished but do not take it up, because the tactic is too arcane and paradoxical.) one day one will, and you will have a mass upload to contend with, hope you handle it better than this start-up. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 20:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

File History

Is there a method to remove arbitrary revisions from a file history? We had conflicting viewpoints on the appearance of a new upload and its history log became cluttered with minor changes. Only the intial upload and last revision are pertinent: File:Portrait, Sarah Anne Elisabeth Moncure, Eugène Quesnet.jpg – Conservatrix (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Conservatrix: COM:REVDEL - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 04:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

In general, we do not delete for a nicer looking version history. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Internal error

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T200121

I'm trying to undelete File:TechHubRiga.jpg but I keep getting an error message: [W1Ye3wpAMFIAAIXBMNIAAABJ] 2018-07-23 18:30:56: Fatal exception of type "InvalidArgumentException". Any ideas what this could be? De728631 (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Apparently this was related to the first upload because I have now successfully restored the second revision of the file. De728631 (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Yann and Ankry: for reference. De728631 (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why, but I could undelete all the files concerned now. Any idea? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. I think chances are higher to see the cause mentioned in the Phab thread. De728631 (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Dangit

Will someone courtesy delete the 20 images I just uploaded. I screwed up the file names, and re uploading them with the original file names on my desktop is going to be much easier than trying to sort through each one visually and try to match them up to their proper names. (they should each have unique names, not named as a set in a series.) Sorry for the trouble. GMG^talk 13:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo:  Done Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Much appreciated. GMG^talk 13:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

File:YOtel W42 10Av jeh.jpg

This file needs some attention after someone failed to read Commons:Overwriting existing files. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I notified the user. Tried to split the history myself but didn't succeed. De728631 (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done I split the history. Guanaco (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Request to update protected image

Please review the latest request. (I'm linking the request here because it usually takes months for an admin to check that page.) XYZtSpace (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@XYZtSpace:  Done However, the image needs OTRS permission and will probably be deleted. Guanaco (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Guanaco: I don't think the update works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XYZtSpace (talk • contribs) 23:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@XYZtSpace: It's a caching issue. It's showing the new version for me now. Try hitting F5 or ctrl-F5 on the file page. Guanaco (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Request to withdraw Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kuroko Massive Sulfide Cross section.png

On 22 May 2018, I created a deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kuroko Massive Sulfide Cross section.png because I had concerns about the copyright status of this image. The uploader of the image responded with an email from the original publisher of the image, which showed that the copyright owners' licence is compatible with Wikimedia Commons. Therefore, I request that my request for deletion should be withdrawn. According to Commons:Deletion_requests#Closing_discussions, I must not close this discussion because I created it. Therefore, can an administrator close this discussion, please? GeoWriter (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Consider it done, I will close this after saving this. — regards, Revi 10:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. GeoWriter (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Change HotCat translations’ content model

Please change these pages’ (except /Documentation) content model to JavaScript. It will soon cause that only interface administrators can edit these pages and thus makes them harder to modify for a hacker (if fewer users can edit it, it’s harder to find an account with sufficient privileges that can be hacked into). This is especially important because these scripts are loaded from many other wikis, so a hacker could attack those too. The safest option would be to store these translations in JSON instead of JavaScript (or even in separate MediaWiki messages), but that needs a modification of HotCat itself and may have unexpected side effects. Thanks in advance, —Tacsipacsi (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done I changed the content model on the subpages to JavaScript. Guanaco (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Guanaco: where can I see the content model? Is Special:PrefixIndex/MediaWiki:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js/ already set to JavaScript? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 11:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: You can see in the page information for each page, e.g. German translation is wikitext; and it can be changed at Special:ChangeContentModel/MediaWiki:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js/de. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tacsipacsi: the English translation redirects to MediaWiki:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js/translating which is also wikitext. I think all the translations are. They should probably be changed as well. Not by me though, obviously. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 12:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: The English page is wikitext and should remain such. The other translations (like the German one) are valid JavaScript codes and are loaded as JavaScript by the gadget (the English one is explicitly excepted from this behavior), so any malicious code runs directly in users’ browser, thus these (the non-English ones) should also be changed. (Except for MediaWiki:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js/sandbox.js, which is already JavaScript because its .js ending.) —Tacsipacsi (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Problem patrolling translation pages

How is it that an IP is editing pages such as Commons:Translation administrators/uk and Commons:Administrators/it also possibly more to the point, how can I fix it? It doesn't properly revert/undo vandalism to pages of Translation administrators (where I most commonly have this issue) and it also won't allow me to fix it once I find it. I've had this problem patrolling for a while now but I would like to solve this and be able to fix vandalism to these pages in the future. Thank you, -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sixflashphoto: This makes no sense, if an IP can edit it, we should be able to revert it.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I've noticed this for a long time to be frank but always just passed those on RTRC but I'd like to actually solve this and be able to fix it. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sixflashphoto: I don’t understand you. You did revert it by reverting the edit on the translation unit page. Translatable pages (which use the Translate extension) can be edited only by editing the translation units (apart from changing the structure on the original page, i.e. Commons:Translation administrators in this case, and marking it for translation). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tacsipacsi: I hope you're not arguing that this isn't thoroughly confusing. To revert this edit on Commons:Translation administrators/uk, I appear to have had to actually edit a totally different page, Translations:Commons:Translation_administrators/3/uk. The fact that Rollback only undoes the last edit depending on the weird opaque underlying structure of the pages would appear to be a bug, not a feature. And I've also stumbled across this type of weirdness before only to decide that reverting minor vandalism test edits wasn't worth the effort of figuring out what was going on, when there were a hundred and one other more pressing issues to deal with. Storkk (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh my gosh thank you I thought I was crazy. Also thank you for fixing Commons:Translation administrators/uk for me. I thought I had to be a translation admin to fix these properly. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Storkk: No, I just wanted to say it’s possible (it’s not confusing for me, by the way, but it’s just me, and it’s probably because I’ve got used to it). I never use the rollback feature, so it haven’t annoyed me yet.
@Sixflashphoto: No, translation adminship is only about marking pages for translation and a few other administrative things. Translated pages cannot be edited directly by anyone, but everyone can edit them by modifying the translation units (except, of course, in case of page protection). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sixflashphoto and Storkk: Look at mw:Help:Extension:Translate/Page translation administration#Anatomy of a translatable page. --jdx ^Re: 01:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Except that is, of course, utter hogwash. Quote from that page: "reverting incorrect edits works as usual (including the rollback button)" ... then proceeds to explain how it works completely not as usual, because "you only have to edit the affected translation unit and the translation page will be updated as well. To find the edit to the translation unit from the edit to the translation page, just click the "contribs" link for the editor and look for an edit at a similar time." Describing that as "rollback working as usual" is simultaneously ridiculous, infuriating, and perverse. Storkk (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Corrected explanation for that page: "reverting incorrect edits works completely differently from usual, especially the rollback button. First you must find all the original affected translation units, by clicking the "contribs" link for the editor and looking for related edits at a similar time, then you revert them all separately." Storkk (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Storkk: I wish that page was changed to your wording. I mainly take issue with "Similarly, reverting incorrect edits works as usual (including the rollback button)". As you explained that isn't how rollback works at all. It may save someone else confusion in the future. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Revision delete

Please delete upload version Special:Diff/262029020 Special:Diff/268754507 Special:Diff/269847070 of File:Nirzar Pangarkar (WMF).jpg as they are copyvio from [11], see the icon. --B dash (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@B dash: Are you saying WMF personnel is impersonating random people on Twitter who look the same and have the same name?! If it walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a rabbit! - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I overlooked that User:Npangarkar (WMF) is User:Nirzardp, I withdrawn the request. --B dash (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Further deletion reason dropdown cleanups

The current reasons are here: MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown.

I propose to remove the following reasons:

Out of project scope

Content out of project scope of Commons templates (template namespace)

Probably the most controversial removal. These cases are handled via deletion requests and the delreq gadget, so there usually is no need to use the dropdown for this. And even if such pages are manually deleted, it's better to link to the deletion request than to use this reason. On the other hand, the existence of this reason could lead less experienced admins to assume this to be a valid speedy deletion reason. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Spam

Cross-wiki spam

Unspecific reasons. This could fall under either G1 (nonsense), G10 (advertisement), or G3 (vandalism).

Improperly named

Probably a duplicate with C2. In general, we like redirect to remain, or at least go through a DR. This again is a reason that leads inexperienced admins to believe that this is a valid speedy deletion criterion.

Redundant or duplicate

Probably a duplicate with F8. Same reasoning as for Improperly named.

Mass deletion of copyrighted or other inappropriate content (file namespace)

Just use the normal reason, you would use for non-mass deletions. Also, "Other inappropriate content" is very unspecific.

--Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Somewhat counterintuitively, it looks like the current Commons policy permitting the use of the speedy deletion process for "files/pages which very clearly fall outside of Commons’ project scope" is at Commons:Deletion_policy#Out_of_scope rather than Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion. —RP88 (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

It was introduced in this edit by Rd232. While the edit comment claims that it just restructured the text, I can find no evidence about such a policy in the version previous to that. Therefore, and since this contradicts COM:CSD, I removed it. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid you are mistaken. Rd232 did not introduce project scope speedy deletion in the restructuring edit to which you link. It was the tenth permitted reason for a speedy deletion in the immediately preceding revision. I'm not adverse to changing the policy, but I'm inclined to revert your change. —RP88 (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

True, I did not notice this list was below the speedy deletion criteria. Nevertheless I maintain that we keep the change, since we have two clearly conflicting policies, one which is explicitly about this subject, while the other isn't. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I support the changes, as far as I can.

You added Office action today, which should be very rarely used (has place for misuse too) if then they have they own comment. So I removed this again. -- User: Perhelion 15:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Srittau and Perhelion: as the speedy deletion policy have been amended, is it possible now to add (an) option(s) in MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js, in order to have the possibility to tag for speedy deletion files with the rationale "out of scope personal files" and/or with all the criterias that have been added to the policy? and of course also for the reasons to delete for the administrators when they use the option "delete" or "delete and notify" Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

it might be necessary also to re-work the current speedy tags or/and to create new ones. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 04:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Spank me

I've been accused of bad categorization: User talk:Alexis Jazz#Why you tagging maps which I created with tag "Files from Photobucket"?

To quote PANONIAN:

"Aside from all that, if I understood correctly, you simply scanning Wikimedia for word "Photobucket" and then you adding all file pages where you find that word into category "Files from Photobucket" without checking are these files really from Photobucket or that word there is used for other reason? Correct? Do you realize that by such action you wrongly indicating origin of some images? I am quite sure that this is against Wikimedia policies." (..) "Fine. I will move these files to "Category:Files that mention Photobucket", but simply because if I would waste too much of my free time here it would delay some projects which I am currently working on. Few years ago, I would probably open discussion about this at COM:AN/U."

I'd rather get this cleared up and over with now as I'm being accused of violating policy. So if my categorization in Category:Files from Photobucket and Category:Files that mention Photobucket was bad, an admin should spank me. If it wasn't, can an admin tell PANONIAN that it wasn't? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I don't think it takes one to tell you that you shouldn't put files that aren't from Photobucket in Category:Files from Photobucket. And to be a little more helpful, here is a search that (for the most part) identifies files in that category that mention Photobucket outside of the source field. You might want to stick that in your VisualFileChange and do some custom replacements of categories for selected files. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

OK. Consider yourself trouted. I find it hard to identify what the point of Category:Files that mention Photobucket is, and files like File:Drinska_banovina1931.png really shouldn't be in a "from Photobucket" category, so these edits do indeed look pretty silly. But you're being trouted for self-reporting a minor content disagreement to COM:AN, something that admins have no particular prerogative to solve. If you genuinely wanted wider input to clarify the community's standards on these type of things, a neutrally worded message on COM:VP would be acceptable, but asking for a spanking on COM:AN is certainly TROUT-worthy. Storkk (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@LX: I had already done a similar search and filtered a bunch, but yours finds some more. So I'll look at those as well. Later. Hopefully. Motivation isn't all that high right now, after this. Storkk, ..noted. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

file from up.wp

I would like to upload this file: https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Файл:Gerasimos.jpg

from uk.wp...is that allowed? I belongs in this category: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Deir_Hajla

Huldra (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a fair use case at the Ukrainian WP, so it's not acceptable at Commons. De728631 (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, too bad, --Huldra (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Restructuring the delete reason dropdown

Currently this dropdown is a bit of historically grown mess (current list is here: MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown). It's sometimes hard to find the correct reason, sometimes it lets you believe something is a speedy deletion reason when it isn't. In my experience, this dropdown is used nearly exclusive for speedy deletions, while deletion requests are handled with the gadget that includes a deletion reason. Therefore I propose to order the dropdown by speedy deletion criterion, linking to the criterion in question, and - where appropriate - use the wording from the speedy deletion page. This also improves the accountability of admins. Non-speedy reasons are added to the end.

• Namespace-specific deletions
  • Talk
  • G1: Inappropriate use of commons pages
  • G2: Unneeded commons page redirect
  • G8: Orphaned commons page
  • Gallery
  • GA1: Gallery without images or other media files; see Commons:Galleries
  • GA2: Gallery created by mistake
  • GA3: User intended to create encyclopedic content; see Commons:Project scope
  • GA4: Promotional content or spam; see COM:ADVERT
  • User
  • U1: User requested deletion in own user space
  • U2: User page of non-existent user
  • U3: Inappropriate use of user pages
  • User page of indefinitely blocked user
  • Commons
  • COM1: Improperly filled or routinely emptied deletion request or log
  • MediaWiki
  • G6: Uncontroversial maintenance; local value is equal to default value
  • G6: Uncontroversial maintenance; deprecated or non-functional script
  • Template
  • T1: Recently-created template that duplicates an existing template
  • T2: Unused template
  • Category
  • G1: Empty category
  • C1: Renamed or duplicate category
  • C2: Improperly named category
  • TimedText
  • G6: Uncontroversial maintenance; redundant Timed Text or timed text belonging to a deleted file
  • Invalid Timed Text
  • Timed Text does not match audio content
  • Unfree timed text
  • Creator and Institution
  • T1: Recently-created Commons template that duplicates an existing template
  • T2: Unused and unlikely to be needed Commons template
  • T2: Unused and implausible, Commons template redirect
  • Content out of project scope of Commons templates
• Copyright-related reasons
  • File
  • F1: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing
  • F1: Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work
  • F1: Copyright violation, no indication of a free license on the source site
  • F1: Copyright violation; can usually be uploaded to your local Wikipedia as fair use if an article exists
  • F2: Fair use material is not permitted on Wikimedia Commons
  • F3: Derivative work of non-free content
  • F3: Screenshot of non-free content
  • F4: Failed license review; non-free license
  • F5: Missing essential information such as license, permission or source
  • F6: License laundering
  • Mass deletion of copyrighted or other inappropriate content
  • Permission granted only for one or more Wikimedia projects
  • OTRS: Unaccepted or insufficient permission for use on Commons
• Other reasons
  • File
  • F7: File page with no file uploaded
  • F8: Exact or scaled-down duplicate
  • F8: Exact or scaled-down duplicate with non-descriptive file name
  • F9: Embedded data
  • File is corrupt, empty, or in a disallowed format
• General reasons
  • G1: Test page or page with no valid content
  • G1: Accidental creation
  • G1: Nonsense
  • G2: Unused and implausible, or broken redirect
  • G2: Cross-namespace redirect
  • G2: Cross-mediatype redirect
  • G3: Content intended as Vandalism, threat, or attack
  • G4: Recreation of content deleted per community consensus
  • G5: Temporary deletion for history cleaning or revision suppression
  • G5: Temporary deletion for history splitting of overwritten files
  • G5: Temporary deletion for history merging of different uploads of the same file
  • G6: Temporary deletion for file renaming
  • G6: Temporary deletion for category renaming
  • G6: Uncontroversial maintenance
  • G7: Author or uploader requested deletion of recently created, unused content
  • G8: Page dependent on deleted or non-existent content
  • G9: Office action
  • Out of project scope
  • Out of project scope: promotional content
  • Spam
  • Cross-wiki spam
  • Improperly named
  • Redundant or duplicate

I see quite a few items that could be removed or merged, but I'd like to leave that to a separate discussion. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not against restructuring, but the use of codes like "G7". Won't that lead to just another bunch of Wiki-terms that aren't suitable for newbie like they have at en-wiki. Natuur12 (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I have no idea about the situation on enwiki, but I have had that concern myself. Ideally, we could include the number in the drop-down, but not in the message itself. Another alternative is to put the number in brackets behind the text to de-emphasize it. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Restructuring seems like a good idea but I would still leave the copyright-related block on top of the list, because these are the only real quick-access options needed. I also like the idea of having the relevant criterion in brackets at the end of the text string. This provides a link without being too obtrusive and confusing for newbies. De728631 (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Just to clarify: The copyright items are still at the top as before. They are only shown for the File namespace, while all the items above are not shown for the File namespace.
      • All Admins should be familiar with COM:CSD codes, especially newbies.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
        • I was referring to non-admin newbie users who would be turned off by wikilawyering like G1, F5, etc. being the first thing they read in the deletion log of their precious file. And unless I'm mistaken, I guess this is what Natuur12 meant, too. New admins, of course, need to know their stuff. De728631 (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
          • @De728631: I see, thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 17:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this is fine, as long as files related reasons appear at the top when deleting files. That's the whole point of deletion on Commons (with some exaggerations). — regards, Revi 06:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

 Comment Thanks for looking at this boring, but useful update. I also would like to avoid obscur numbering. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done with a few slight tweaks. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Just a year and half ago, we didn't even have codes. Now, gotta memorize this code -> criteria mapping :( --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

How so? The code was just added to the end as additional information and to make clear which reasons are for speedy deletions amd which aren't. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

People will start referring to the criteria by their code rather than the actual reasoning. I personally never liked this, but given that COM:CSD has already changed, this is gonna happen anyways, just sooner. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you to all those who are taking care of this boring, but much needed administrative task. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for looking into this. I've tried to do this about 7 years ago here, here, and probably on more occasions, but did not succeed, maybe because my proposal wasn't clear or maybe because people weren't comfortable to change from things they were already comfortable with. Who knows, that's a loooong time ago. This change is necessary as already elaborated above. Good luck. Rehman 11:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The change has already been implemented. But I think it's a bit hard to recognize that the overall changes are not that big. In this case it was basically adding the speedy deletion reason to the end (not the beginning per this discussion) and some minor reordering to better fit the order of the speedy deletion reasons. Now further cleanups can be discussed separately. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism images

These have sat here long enough - can someone please get rid of these vandalism images that were uploaded earlier, and I overwrote to prevent them from being used on enwiki. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

[redacted comment] Home Lander (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I have deleted the images. Not sure what to do about preventing reupload at a different title though. Ed (Edgar181) 17:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. For now I guess it's whack-a-mole when they come around. Home Lander (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

[redacted comment]—LX (talk, contribs) 20:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

He's back at it - see File:Sq.jpg. Home Lander (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Nuked and indeffed. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, He did it again at File:Enoch zu Guttenberg 2012-03-24.jpg, and probably trying again now. I'm trying to immediately replace the files with text identifying the image as vandalism to prevent it from displaying elsewhere. Home Lander (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The admins are aware of this issue and are working on ways to prevent it. I've redacted parts of comments which should remain private. Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Long term abuse (user:Fouadan)

Based on this, I'd report this also for speedy deletion:

• File:Alkawn-275-275-1521673186.jpg
• File:Norane7albums.jpg
• File:Photo 025 copPhoto 025 copyy Nisirhq;oussin.jpg

Best --Alaa :)..! 19:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Guanaco (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Again here --Alaa :)..! 17:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Guanaco: --Alaa :)..! 07:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done Guanaco (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Vietnamese people.png

Recently, I come with File:Vietnamese people.png, which was possibly vandalized by User:PeterTran0924. The file has been reverted and the user regarding has been warned. Please delete the version of the file which is possibly used for vandalism, thank you.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Guanaco (talk) 08:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Translation.

Dear colleagues,

I have just translated the speedy deletion notice in Russian: Template:Speedywhat/heading/ru. Could you please either include ru-line (i.e. "-->[[Template:Speedywhat/ru|{{#language:ru}}]] | <!--") into the protected Template:Speedywhat/lang page or describe me how should I act instead. Thanks! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 10:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Only admins can do this, but it would point to Template:Speedywhat/ru, which doesn’t seem to exist. You should translate that one too. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I moved the translation to the correct place pointed by you. But the issue with adding ru-line is still existing... Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 13:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done I've updated {{Speedywhat}} to show your Russian translation. Thanks for your contribution. —RP88 (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Jurgens photo

Good Morning. Jurgens photo was posted on a on line dating site and they tried to scam me. I would appreciate it if you would let him know. Being a handsome charismatic man surely he understands how his photo may be misused. Wish him well and if he is single tell him to give me a call. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.151.182.123 (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid you will have to be a little more specific about the user and photo.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 08:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@68.151.182.123: I asume, you saw a Photo of "Jurgen" or maybe "Jürgen" and than traced it back to this site. If this is the case: If the person on the photo posted it himself, you can go to the description page with photo and click on the name of the uploader to contact him directly. If the photo was uploaded by someone else (the photographer most likely) you can also click on the name of the uploader to get in contact with the photographer and ask him to contact the model. In either case you can post a message on the uploader's talk page (publically) or you can create an account yourself on this site and than send an email to him. --C.Suthorn (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

High resolution images for artists need to be deleted

I mistakenly uploaded high resolution images of paintings I do not wish the be available in high resolution online. All images are not for commercial use, I need to remove them and re-upload them at a later date. Can someone please delete them? All images associated the Draft:Sheryl Luxenberg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sheryl_Luxenburg)

• File:LUXENBURG,_HINDSIGHT,_ACRYLIC_ON_LINEN.jpg
• File:LUXENBURG,_THE_HIGH_ROAD,_ACRYLIC_ON_LINEN.jpg
• File:LUXENBURG,_FOREST_FROM_TREES,_ACRYLIC_ON_LINEN.jpg
• File:LUXENBURG,_BLINDSIDED,_ACRYLIC_ON_LINEN.jpg

Thank you!

Sherylelaine (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sherylelaine: Is there a particular resolution you are comfortable with, say in Megapixels or number of pixels on the long edge?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sherylelaine:  Done I deleted the images. For future reference, please have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Speedy deletion. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sherylelaine: Non-commercial licenses are not accepted on Commons. You have to either release them under a license which allows commercial use (as was the case now), or upload them to the English Wikipedia if they comply with the w:WP:EDP policy. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for tag change on protected image

File:Flag of Bulgaria.svg has a PD-self tag, but a PD-ineligible tag would be more appropriate. Posting this change request since the page is protected. As advised on the Bulgaria FA nomination. I'd also like some assistance on PD tags for the rest of the images in that article - PD-US tags are requested, but in many of those images they're inapplicable? - Tourbillon 10:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done, and I unprotected the page for description edits. Guanaco (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Uploading the same image file as both JPEG and PNG

My interpretation of the information contained in Commons:Media for cleanup is that it is in order to upload the same image file in both JPEG and PNG formats (with a link provided between the two). I appreciate the potential advantages of having access to both file formats; certain images (such as of plants) often require further modification once downloaded for use, particularly in publications. For this purpose the availability of files in a lossless format such as PNG may hold advantages. Hence all files subjected to prior editing recently uploaded by me to Commons have been in both formats. However, except for the example given in Commons:Media for cleanup, I have encountered, at least in the pages that have been visited, no other instances of such dual format uploads. Hence I am starting to doubt if I am doing the right thing. Would appreciate if you could put my mind at ease as to whether uploading the same image in both formats, if one so prefers, is in order. SAplants (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

This is fine. An ongoing large project that does this is User:Fæ/LOC maps which uploads both TIFF and jpeg formats when possible for usability and thumbnail rendering reasons. --Fæ (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much for the reassurance, and for the link; much appreciated! --SAplants (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

SAplants formats like PNG and TIFF are obvious for graphical images and for scans/photographs of historical documents and photos. Generally these images are frequently retouched, for example to clean up the stains on paper, to crop, to rotate, and sometimes quite serious restoration. The argument for uploading them for modern photos you take yourself is much weaker. Has anyone ever modified one of your photos on Commons? It isn't a collaborative editing project, like Wikipedia. While there are some editors here who have the professional software required to properly edit a photograph, there are quite a lot of muck about with GIMP and Paint and other tools that tend to wreck photos, lose the EXIF data, drop out the necessary colour profile, etc. Even if your photo requires a minor edit (crop, dust spot, rotation), doing this once to the JPG is pretty minimal in terms of harm, especially as you are uploading 16MP versions. It is only really if the JPG is repeatedly saved/edited/saved or is edited in poor quality software, that it will start to show degradation.

A more likely edit to a photo is to correct blown highlights, raise shadows, or adjust overall exposure. And doing that on an 8-bit format like PNG or JPG is hopeless. It would be best to do that to the raw file. Second best would be a 16-bit tiff. I don't personally see any point in using PNG for photographs (except photos of paintings, documents, etc). Additionally I think you are using Photoshop quality setting 12 for saving your JPG. That's actually very wasteful of size for invisible improvement of quality compared to setting 11. (The equivalent to 11 on Lightroom is 90, which is what I use).

I would encourage you to worry less about the minimal chance that someone will benefit from editing your PNGs and to concentrate more on taking and uploading great photos with good documentation/categorisation. Submitting images to QI and FP is one way to become a better photographer and learn better post-processing techniques. If you are keen to upload something that others may edit from, you can upload your RAW files to Commons Archive but I don't know how active or well used that project is (see also Category:Files with source materials at Commons Archive). Of all the photographers active at FP, I don't know any who regularly upload a raw, TIFF or PNG photograph, and only one or two who have used Commons Archive occasionally. In contrast, those who upload and restore old photographs and posters, tend to use TIFF combined with the JPG for wiki use. My feeling is you are simply wasting your time with the PNGs. -- Colin (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear Colin, Thank you very much for sharing your views on the matter of dual format uploads. You make some valid points. The primary reason for me wanting to provide images also in PNG was not to allow for possible editing on Commons, but to benefit users who want to use such images in publications. As you may know, many scholarly journals and book publishers do not accept JPEGs (they require/prefer TIFF or EPS)---although there is definitely a growing acceptance of images in JPEG. But because file size is so much larger in TIFF, I thought PNG would be a good substitute (although still requiring conversion to TIFF to allow for CMYK printing). I reasoned that by already having an image in a lossless format on Commons, it can be further edited or converted to say TIFF by users without the fear of loosing data. I guess one is also prone to get overly paranoid when reading about the progressive degradation associated with repeated saving as JPEGs. However, you have convinced me to reconsider my position, and to rather confine myself to uploading only in JPEG. Thank you very much for the trouble to respond; much appreciated! -- SAplants (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

If they are restrictive on file format accepted then of course the JPG can be turned into a TIFF. I wonder if the requirement for TIFF is mainly concerned with images that contain graphics and text (either entirely or overlaid on top of the photo such as a "1cm ----" size rule). A JPG containing text and charts and lines would have those annoying gnats blurring the sharp lines and looks very unprofessional. Remember that not every photographer has the equipment, skill and software to produce images from RAW files, so the output from their camera will be a JPG. So I think in many cases such photographic images will have been a JPG at some point. -- Colin (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Somebody pease delete

I need the filename for the correct file. I nominated the file redirect to be deleted but until now nothing happened. Thank you! --hueman1 (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Philippines road sign G2-2.svg has been deleted by Guanaco. De728631 (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! --hueman1 (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. De728631 (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Dubious Flickr account

I'm dubious about the files imported from the Flickr account russimages. The photos I've checked have no EXIF data, and include photos of birds from different continents; e.g. a White-eared Bulbul (a southern Asian species; on Commons here), adjacent to a Northern Cardinal (a North American species; on Commons here), yet both purported to have been taken on 28 May 2014. They are missing any information about photo locations. Although I can't find any evidence that they are license-washed from other photographers, I have sufficient suspicions they may be, to ask for a review by someone with better experience of detecting this. Thanks! MPF (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I've spent only a few minutes on analyzing this, but everything seems Ok. The profile fits to a genuine birds photographer. Its name Russ fits to EXIF data here. There are lots of EXIFs in those images - MPF, you likely missed them. Some EXIFs are complete 1 2 3, some are truncated by software, and you have to click on "Show extended details", like in 4, etc., but all EXIFs that I saw are consistent with a single set of semi-pro birding equipment - a 500 mm lens ("Bigma" I guess) attached to a Nikon camera, which was changed from D7100 to D7200 to D500 over the years. Materialscientist (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Materialscientist: Thanks! I'll leave them, then. Odd though, as the two I cited above have no metadata at all (even the header "Metadata" is missing, and no "Show extended details") - any guesses as to what's happened to it with those two? - MPF (talk) 11:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Some image-processing software silently truncates EXIFs, either partially or completely, and many users don't bother to check that. For this reason many of my early Commons uploads (I mean my own photos) have no EXIF. This happens especially often with scientific image-processing software (for example, images from all kind of microscopes), where developers don't bother about EXIFs. Also, some software gives an explicit option of removing EXIF, and some people use it, for example when EXIF shows date or place that were incorrectly set in a camera on a given date by mistake. Materialscientist (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Updating of old username in all records.

Hello, I wish to request a change in my records to my current username, as the old one could be used to identify me.
As such, I want all instances of the former username, be it current or in the historical records, updated to my current username.
Only these pages and their histories are affected:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KhuzdulBattleCryCirthMoria.png
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KhuzdulBattleCryCirthErebor.png
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KhuzdulBalinsTomb.png

Any and all help will be greatly appreciated.

Kind regards,

Eruanno — Preceding unsigned comment added by EruannoVG (talk • contribs) 11:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

File:2014 Greater Washington Government Contracting Awards (15650314767).jpg

Please, Someone delete this redirect. So that i can move this again back to it. Thanks ! — Tulsi Bhagat (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

•  Support, but @Tulsi Bhagat: why do you and @ZI Jony think the original move qualified for criterion 2?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, It's my bad & I'm sorry as well. The original move request did not comply with renaming guidelines (criterion 2). So that It's better to move it in back state. Regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
•  Done. Redirect deleted, move reverted. Guanaco (talk) 05:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Gallary Bug: FC Bayern Munich kits

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T201252

Hi, I created Gallary: FC Bayern Munich kits! But Gallary is frozen! Can you check out this! FC Bayern München kits

Footwiks (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Footwiks: That's.. odd. I don't know why but it takes forever to load. Eventually I got it to load though. It categorizes as "Pages using Template:Football kit with incorrect pattern parameters" so you probably did something wrong.- Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 03:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Joãohuffpuff

Joãohuffpuff (talk · contribs) Possible sock Brasão de Municípios (talk · contribs) and ReinaldoFerrsilva (talk · contribs). Same behavior. O revolucionário aliado (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Indef'ed, uploads nuked. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Question ref Copyright

File:Inauguración muestra “Malvinas, mi casa” - Día de la Mujer en el Museo Malvinas e Islas del Atlántico Sur (16733693006).jpg

In the meta information of this and related images, the original photographer has stated these are copyrighted works. These have been uploaded from here, which contains a statement that rights are reserved. Does this mean Commons is hosting copyrighted works without permission? FYI this is one of four images. WCM_email 09:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

possible copyright violation by User:Rajanpanta323

User:Rajanpanta323 seems to be adding copyright material without permissions. Have tagged File:Ratneshwar Lal Kayastha P2.jpg, File:Anuradha Koirala P3.jpg, File:Umakanta Jha P5.jpg, File:Mohanraj Malla P7.jpg and File:Ganesh Prasad Timilsina NA.jpg for copyright violation. FitIndia 09:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done I speedy deleted the files you found and nominated the user's other files for deletion. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Srittau: Thank you. FitIndia 15:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

New speedy deletion categories

I noticed that many of the files in Category:Other speedy deletions are adverts and personal files, so I changed {{SD}} to categorize G10 and F10 into Category:Advertisements for speedy deletion and Category:Personal files for speedy deletion. This should improve the workflow in processing these categories. For example, in the advert category, I'm finding that about half the files were uploaded by an inappropriate username. Guanaco (talk) 06:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Noticed that in both new categories a significant majority of files are logos. Many are obviously copyright ineligible, and none of the logos are either adverts or personal photos. The application of speedies and the categories appears misplaced for these. --Fæ (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The logos are being speedily deleted because they're spam, regardless of copyright status. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, all the logos I casually checked are uploaded by a single-purpose account to promote a small business. Although I see many files in Category:Personal files for speedy deletion that would better be placed in Category:Advertisements for speedy deletion. @BevinKacon: , since they tagged the majority of the images in those categories. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

P.S. And as always I expect admins to evaluate each reported file and the merits of the speedy deletion request. I actually declined the speedy deletion of a logo of what I considered to be a "larger" company that might be in-scope. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

With Category:Unidentified logos having 84,000+ members, this might just be the tip of the iceberg. I am only tagging files uploaded by self described employees of the company.

@Srittau: sending File:Brand Name.jpg to DR because it might be in scope is the complete opposite of the file status. If in scope, why in the 7 years since its upload, is it not used? And why did an employee of the company need to upload it?--BevinKacon (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The growing problem of obesity

Commons:Deletion requests/File:The growing problem of obesity.jpg

Because time is a factor here I'd like to ask admins to take a look at this, and possibly not enforce the full 7 day period for this DR. The image was uploaded yesterday and is own work, so if it is removed or reverted to the blurred version (with revdel) quickly, such actions may still have an effect. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 18:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Unclosed deletion requests

Sorry if it is not a right page for this. Actually two of my deletion requests are open for more than a month now. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Try Tech Info.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:पंकज.jpg. Some admin please look into this.--Hindust@ni^{क्या करें? बातें!} 18:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

There are over 500 still-open DRs that were opened chronologically before those two. Storkk (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, there is backlog. Normally every deletion request is finalized in 7 days. So I thought that is abnormal. Anyways thank you.--Hindust@ni^{क्या करें? बातें!} 19:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

FelipematosGFBPA + Juliocesarseculo21

FelipematosGFBPA (talk · contribs) + Juliocesarseculo21 (talk · contribs) Possible sock Brasão de Municípios (talk · contribs) and ReinaldoFerrsilva (talk · contribs). Same behavior. O revolucionário aliado (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, uploads nuked. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Article1 B.svg

Hi, I`ve created a better version of this file (new colors) in File:Test.svg but I can`t upload it because file is protected. Please help. Tal (רונאלדיניו המלך, talk) 23:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Article1 B.svg should not be overwritten. Category:Evaluation scales using colors has a whole set of these badges that all have the same design. This includes the type of shading you removed in your new file. Fundamental changes to a file need to be uploaded under a new name per COM:OVERWRITE. De728631 (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Nuke edits

Hi, User:Minas123456 was already blocked here, but their edits are still left. Please nuke or revert: Special:Contributions/Minas123456. Stryn (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Taken care of. --Túrelio (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Frogs

File:Donald Trump alt-right supporter (32452974604).jpg

This file is never going to end up being kept anyway, it's DW copyvio. It's turned into a cross-wiki conflict, please delete it before it starts a cross-wiki war. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 09:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Kept after a previous DR, currently being discussed. I see no valid speedy deletion reason. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

درخواست به بازبینی مقاله ام

به علت عدم وجود سرشناسی مقاله ی من در لیست حذف سریع قرار گرفت و هم اکنون سرشناسی لازمه ارائه گردید و متن در قسمت تمرین بنده ویراش شد. خواستار برسی مجدد هستم. با تشکر و عرض خسته نباشید. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soheilfathi (talk • contribs) 12:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Soheilfathi: اینجا ویکی‌انبار، مخزنی از تصاویر و ویدیوهای آزاد است. شما باید مطلبتان را در تابلوی اعلانات مدیران ویکی‌پدیای فارسی بنویسید. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Spam

Just FYI: It looks like today united spamming forces do run an attack against us, I just performed about 80 blocks. Please keep your heads up, I'll be offline now until tomorrow in the evening. Cheers, --Achim (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Detetion Request

Since we can't translate pages into Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese, please delete the following pages as I can't edit the page directly:

• Commons:Policies_and_guidelines/zh-hans
• Commons:Policies_and_guidelines/zh-hant
• Help:Contents/zh-hans
• Help:Contents/zh-hant

If there still remain some other pages please delete them too. Thanks. --GY Fan★ 14:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@范: Why can't you? What message(s) do you get when you try? I see "Translation to Simplified Chinese is disabled: Translate in zh please." and "Translation to Traditional Chinese is disabled: Translate in zh please." Why is that?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, seems the sysop or translation administrator prohibited us from translating pages into zh-hans or zh-hant. --GY Fan★ 14:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Translate extension provides a function to convert automatically between Simplified and Traditional script. You may find the conversion button next to the talk page button. – Kwj2772 (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I know, but my request is delete the pages that needs no more. We can't translate into Simplified and Traditional Chinese so the outdated content remains outdated, and the language bar will show two deprecated languages. --GY Fan★ 08:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Deleted. – Kwj2772 (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The first two say 0% translated but the two help ones say 92% and 79% completed. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

SignBot is bugged worse than on enwiki

I have griefance with User:SignBot's false positives. See page history of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Genova-panorama dal santuario di ns incoronata3.jpg. User:Zhuyifei1999 (the bot operator) also has their talk page set to semi-protected, so it's difficult to reach out.

I expect nothing to come out of mentioning this at COM:AN, but at least that's what the standard bot notice says to do. Wrong place, wrong time. 84.250.17.211 01:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Also, it doesn't add subst {{Please sign}} as it's supposed to do. I've reverted it five times in the past 24 hours, three times yesterday (Tuesday, UTC). 84.250.17.211 01:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• (Edit conflict) I have given User:Zhuyifei1999 notice on their talk page of this AN post. Bidgee (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• I suppose you have been asked many times why you won't register an account.. But I can't really search for that, because, you know.. you don't have an account. The edits you make are very uncommon for unregistered or new users. SignBot could be adjusted to detect some of this, but the adjustment would likely be made just for you. I won't blame Zhuyifei1999 if they would simply tell you to register an account and opt out of signbot. Or put !nosign! in the edit summary. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 01:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Being able to edit without an account has been a fundamental tenet across Wikimedia wikis from the beginning, and is only restricted where absolutely necessary. Storkk (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• What is a comment and what is not a comment? It's difficult to say yes and no automatically. But if you like a fix please suggest what patterns should be added 'this is not a comment' list. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Zhuyifei1999: .*<\/noinclude>$

.*\[\[Category:[^\]]*\]\]$ (I think..)

Any comment that inserts {{Reflist-talk}}. Anyone who knows what that's for knows how to sign. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 05:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, you can edit it User:SignBot/exclude regex :P --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

WLM test uploads

I'm doing a few test uploads in preparation for the WLM contest starting in September. I'll post here to ask for the test images to be deleted, unless there's any more efficient method. They be speedy deleted, not renamed, as they will all be duplicates of existing files. The first one to be deleted is File:Northern Ireland - College Of Technology College Square East Belfast Bt1 6dj - .jpg. Thanks for the help, MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

uploads from pexels.com really o.k.?

When I patroled new upload File:Adorable-baby-bed-1296148.jpg and checked the source page, I found that the license explaination of pexels.com states in its section "What is not allowed?"

• Don't redistribute or sell the photos on other stock photo or wallpaper platforms.
• Don't sell unaltered copies of a photo, e.g. don't sell it as a stock photo, poster, print or on a physical product without adding any value.

1. Commons is actually a stock photo platform. So, upload to Commons seems to be forbidden (per Pexels opinion).
2. This point contradicts the statement "All photos on Pexels can be used for free for commercial and noncommercial use." in pexels "What is allowed?" section. Can their images still be considered free for commercial use?

Opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion this means, that Pexels images cannot be sold when unaltered, but can be sold after modifying, and that modifying is allowed. This is not enough free license. Commons images must be usable for commercial purposes even if not modified. Taivo (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Túrelio: Background: Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/07#Pexels.com. I don't know if the license was changed multiple times, but I agree that the current license is non-free for the two reasons you point out, and {{Pexels-CFU}} is not an accurate reflection of the actual terms. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Pinging De728631. --Achim (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Achim. This new Pexels licence is annoying. Now that Túrelio mentioned these restrictions, I agree that {{Pexels-CFU}} is actually invalid. Images once uploaded at Pexels under CC-0 should not be affected, but I think we can no longer upload files from Pexels to Commons under the new proprietary licence. I have now opened Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pexels CFU for the few files that were uploaded under the Pexels-CFU template. De728631 (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@De728631: You missed a bunch. I'm trying to hunt them down. Should we determine the photo number that was used in July and allow photos with a lower number? Pexels doesn't seem to show when an image was published. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@De728631: File:Dream-filter-infrared-surreal-SH.jpg though you didn't upload this one, you did upload several images from other sources like Pixabay through Pexels.com. This image shows you exactly why you can't trust this. Pexels links to https://www.splitshire.com/infrared-landscape/ and the license there is not compatible with Commons. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Another case: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coffee-cup-apple-iphone.jpg, Pexels links to [12] (dead) archived and these terms are not a free license. License laundering by Pexels. Kaboompics turns out to have an account on pexels, it's not import, though it looked like that. Now I don't know about SplitShire either. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 22:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Alright, thank you. I didn't look for the date of upload but only for files using the CFU template. I'm not sure about these photo numbers though, they seem too small to me to be related to the total number of uploads in a temporal sense. De728631 (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Updating abuse filters

Hello,

The name of the global group "OTRS-member" has been changed to "otrs-member". As a result, some of the abuse filters used on this wiki may not work properly. Can one of the administrators please use search for all filters containing the phrase "OTRS" and make the necessary corrections? If you need to know more details please see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T202095 or send me a direct email using Special:EmailUser/Huji.

Thanks! Huji (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Two affected filters: Special:AbuseFilter/history/69/diff/prev/1946, Special:AbuseFilter/history/164/diff/prev/1947, the other mateches in the search are just regex patterns. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: can you also take a look at User talk:Guanaco#Abuse filter? I think Guanaco is busy or something atm. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done should work I think --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Zhuyifei1999: well, in part. Do you mind me saying that hiding Special:AbuseFilter/70 from public view is just stupid? I figured out how to evade it in 30 seconds, should we wait to see how long it will take an abuser? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 03:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Edit filters may be a bit more complex than you think ;) Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Possibly, but are you saying you were notified of that edit? (if you somehow were, I have more ideas to evade the filter) - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 04:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

That method most likely won't work for newbie abusers. Feel free to try it out. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Zhuyifei1999: passed. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 08:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

and passed - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 08:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I said that specific method, not 'tons of new methods'. And no, I don't see how making it public helps making bypassing more difficult. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

It would make it easier for others to spot the flaws. I got two more methods. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 08:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

So how do you propose to fix the filter? Just having a bypass doesn't help anything --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

You are asking me to propose a patch for a thing I'm not allowed to see. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 08:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, I am mildly offended that you call proof of concepts (that have also already been reversed) on files in Category:Test images a "disruption of Commons". I didn't test every method on my own test file because I'm not sure if the filter somehow ignores forged license review if the file at some point had a (seemingly) valid license review. I also don't know if it cares whether I'm forging a license for my own files or someone else's. I suspect it doesn't work that way, but I can't be sure, so I tested on other files as well. Or I would have had to upload more crap, which would have been just as disruptive if not more. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 09:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I can say it's using regex. You cannot prevent all sorts of bypasses with regex (so forget about it), so I'm not asking you to propose a patch but make a entire new method to replace regex. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Btw, you say you have two more methods? Can I say just by knowing it uses regex I have nearly infinite more methods? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: Thanks. I believe filter #65 (which is a deleted filter) also needs updating, just in case someone undeletes it and expects it to work off the cuff. Huji (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Seeking input about regex for spam blacklist

At meta m:Talk:Spam blacklist#seeking input on two regex I am seeking input on the potential for, and consequences of, a blacklisting of two url strings

• photobucket.com/images
• search.com/search?q

I would appreciate feedback from Commons on the pros and cons of that blacklisting. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage map

Participants make unconfirmed edits and refuse to discuss them:

• File:Same-sex marriage map Europe detailed.svg
• File:World marriage-equality laws (up to date).svg
• File:World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Терпр (talk • contribs) 10:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

--Терпр (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

That's rich, considering that you refuse to present your evidence. Why don't you try discussing the issues when people ask you to -- that might be more productive than sulking. Kwamikagami (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Терпр, Kwamikagami, Jedi Friend, and Baronedimare: I have protected the pages in question for one day and restored the status quo from before the edit war. Discuss the changes on the file talk pages and reach a consensus. Continuing the edit war after the protection is over will not be tolerated. Report it here if necessary, but stop reverting or re-uploading contested versions. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Rhapsody (ship, 1996), Sète cf01.jpg

Hello, can an administrator add this description in this protected file please:

{{fr|1=Le ''[[:fr:Rhapsody (cruise-ferry)|Rhapsody]]'' (anciennement ''Napoléon Bonaparte''), amarré dans le port de [[:fr:Sète|Sète]], France.}}

Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done De728631 (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

thanks you, Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Christian Ferrer: I never noticed that you resigned as an admin. So let me take this opportunity to thank you for your good work and hopefully some day you will re-apply for adminship! Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I second this, and I, too, would welcome you back in office. Actually I was wondering why Christian didn't edit the page himself... De728631 (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thirded.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks you for your kind words. :). Yes, I wanted to focus on other things. I was happy and proud to be part of the team, and there is a very high probability that I will be a candidate again in a more or less distant future. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator observation) In future, you can use Template:Edit request on the talk page. 84.250.17.211 16:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Time to close as delete

Re: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tesla Roadster Falcon 9H.png, it's been going on since 9 July. While consensus isn't clear, majority !vote is for delete. There's a lot of doubt expressed toward the copyright of elements of the drawing. When in doubt, delete - correct? As you all know, copyright is nothing to be messed with and it's very much a bright line in Commons just as it is in Wikipedia. Time to do the obvious, isn't it? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done There is a big DR backlog. It will be closed in time. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Deleting takes the click of a mouse on a link button. And if copyvios are "done in time", what's the point of having a bright line on copyvios? I've seen numerous files consecutively deleted in a second that have been up for a few minutes or hours. Sorry, I don't buy the excuse. So what's the real reason why this is being delayed? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Probably because there are DRs going back as far as April and May that still haven't been closed. Buy it or no as you like. That's what we're sellin. GMG^talk 16:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Then I guess Commons needs more administrators and maybe some administrators that are delegated specific duties so that copyvio/deletion requests aren't backed up. Like I said above, if it's not taken care of expediently an d in a timely fashion, why have a bright line rule at all? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I doubt there is any project out there that couldn't use more admins...and more active users in general for that matter. But it's volunteers all the way down. There's also a cool million files that need categories. So DR isn't actually the worst of it. Then again, en.wiki also has a half million unsourced statements and articles in need of additional references. Them's the breaks. GMG^talk 17:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

When people volunteer to work as an admin and are either ignored or turned down, with so much to be done, then my feeling is beggars (those in need) can't be choosers. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Actress Miya George.jpg

Please delete the 2018-08-19 revision uploaded by copyvio-uploader ALBINVA1993 – it's a copyvio. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Majora (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

MP4 -- since when did we allow it

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T202208

Special:Upload clearly says it's allowed, and there are 55 cases already. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

In addition, it seems there is a thumbnail issue with MP4 files. Now I wonder what should I do with my videos... Yann (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Open a bottle of sake and celebrate? But no, really. Wasn't there a consensus against allowing .mp4? If so, maybe we could use a temp filter to prevent new uploads untill this is all sorted out. Natuur12 (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes there was. Commons:Requests for comment/MP4 Video closed that way back in 2014. It seems like this is a recent change too since the timestamps on the uploads say that this started July 31, 2018. --Majora (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Created Special:Abusefilter/209 as now copyrighted music files are being uploaded. MIME file types from existing files. — regards, Revi 06:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Enwiki also allows mp4 now: w:File:Yermi.mp4. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 22:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Cool, Mythbusters in Russian. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 23:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

What are we going to do with the current mp4 files already uploaded? — regards, Revi 06:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

IIRC, the MP4 patent expired recently, and there was a discussion about allowing MP4, but I can't remember a final decision. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

MP4 is many things. First and foremost, "MP4" is just a container. Probably no serious issues. What is usually in it, H.264/MPEG-4 AVC and Advanced Audio Coding is another story, but it can also contain High Efficiency Video Coding.

• MPEG2 (used on for example DVD) expired on 18 February.[13]
• Most (but not all) patents for MPEG-4 Part 2 (DivX, XviD) have expired or will expire this year. I don't know how relevant the patents that remain are.
• H.264/MPEG-4 AVC and HEVC won't expire anytime soon. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Yann, I think what you mean is MP3 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I probably confuse MPEG2, MPEG-4 Part 2 with MP4. Yann (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@-revi: We actually have a speedy criterion for this. CSD F7. MP4 is a disallowed format. Bug aside that temporarily allowed them there is grounds for just speedy deleting them all under that. --Majora (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Well yeah I know we can just delete and force users to reupload in a valid format (like {{Own}} ones), but just wanted to make sure others thinks same. — regards, Revi 16:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Either that or DR the bunch with a note that, provided it is copyright compliant, these can be reuploaded under an approved format. Sorry for the inconvenience. Seeing as MP4 does not comply with the free standards that we expect I personally wouldn't have a problem with just speedying the lot and leaving a note on the uploader's talk page explaining the problem. --Majora (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Can't we reupload them all with V2C (providing there is no other issue, i.e. I nominated a few files for deletion)? That would save people reuploading the whole files. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. Probably should still notify people why their files are being removed/overwritten though. Any of the ways so far seem fine to me. Speedy with talk page note, mass DR, or just do it for them. I like the mass DR approach since VFC can do all the notifying for you and then the uploaders have a choice on how to proceed. It would probably filter out a lot of copyvios for us too since only the actual {{Own}} works would bother. --Majora (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I just went ahead and did it: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:MP4 files. We need a way to keep track of what has been done, should be deleted etc. anyway. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 01:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

 Comment maybe we should actually consider leaving things the way they are! (I know, silly..) The abuse filter is like flypaper for copyvios:

• User talk:Kim nam#Blocked
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:2018 Dalian Beer Festival Live Atmosphere and a public singer.ogg
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by SajjadHKH
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by 野上五十満
• File:M.kods.jpg
• File:Screenshot 20180819-143805.png and *File:Screenshot 20180817-081814.png

Very effective! - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 18:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

For those of you not watching the phab ticket this has been dealt with and MP4 are turned off completely. The edit filter can probably be disabled at this point. The question now is what to do with the ones already uploaded. --Majora (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a shame. Perhaps the ones uploaded can be converted to an allowable file format (providing they aren't copyvios)? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Filter marked as deleted. — regards, Revi 11:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Gallery: Cultural Flags

I'm not sure where to report an ongoing editing war on this page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cultural_flags , that has been going on for the last month. There are continuous edits by unregistered users, that use inappropriate and misleading classification, links to wikipedia sources, and text description of the files in the gallery.

I've used the discussion to notify about the possible abuse of the page, but it has been ignored by the users. Eventually I nominated the page for deletion according to the Wikipedia Commons rules on educational purposes and neutrality, but my deletion request has been removed without being justified. Could you please help on the subject? Argean (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The page has now been semi-protected by Jdx. This should stop the edit warring by unregistered users or very new accounts. De728631 (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I hope that this will reduce the amount of uncontrolled editing, but I'm still not convinced. After browsing the page's history, I realized that there is actually a registered user, named Ac 12romero22 (talk · contribs), that started the numerous edits on the page that possibly led to the editing war. This single user has done hundreds of edits in the gallery over the last year, without ever posting in the discussion page or giving a justified reason for this massive editing. Is there a way to invite this user in discussion? Additionally, I don't see any other users getting involved in the discussion over the future of the page. I'm concerned that the long-term viability of the page is questionable, if there are not enough users willing to reach a consensus and safeguard the purposes served by keeping the page as it currently stands. Thank you. Argean (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

File:GF Handshake.png

Could an admin please verify whether File:GF Handshake.png is a crop or duplicate of File:Photo Jan 07, 1 42 10 PM.jpg or File:Giovanni Feroce (pictured right) and Robert Kraft (pictured left).jpg? Thanks, FASTILY 03:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Fastily: . The two deleted ones are the same but they are different from GF Handshake. --Majora (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

File rename assistance requested.

The Government of Montenegro has introduced a new roundel for its air force. I have renamed the previous roundel to include its years of use, and would like to upload the new roundel, but first I need an administrator to please delete the redirect File:Roundel of Montenegro.svg so the new file can have that namespace. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, whoever did it. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thank you @Guanaco.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 01:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Abuse Filter 69: Template:OTRS permission is not detected

The regex of Special:AbuseFilter/69 should be fixed in order to include Template:OTRS permission which is a 2011 redirect. Look how File:Michael and Martin Hofele.jpg, File:HOFELE-Design factory in Donzdorf.png, File:Bruno Hofele.png, and File:Carl Hofele.png were not tagged accordingly. 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Guanaco (talk) 06:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. While we are at it, there are two other redirects which are not detected by the AbuseFilter: Template:ConfirmationImageOTRS (2008) and Template:OTRS-потврда (2018). These can be easily misused.

By the way, do you think that we should create another filter to prevent the creation of any other redirects by non-admins? Every admin who creates a redirect should be instructed to update AbuseFilter69 as well. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: no, we should leave everything the way it is. I've demonstrated how I can abuse this, but Zhuyifei said this is unfixable (putting it mildly). - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 03:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This is also a problem, but I guess unfixable, at least with abuse filters. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 03:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I think if somebody intends to abuse the system, they ultimately can, and unfortunately, we have few means to prevent them. But this is a case of misuse, rather than abuse. In my opinion, filters are lax here, and we can decrease the number of misuses by making filters stricter. That is what I want. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Zhuyifei said there would be millions of ways to evade the filter, but really, if you can catch the top 10 most obvious ways it should at least help. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 05:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

مشكله فى انشاء الصفحة

لدى مشكلة عند عمل الصفحة تظهر هذة الرسالة هذا الفعل تم التعرف عليه تلقائيا كضار، ولذا تم منعه. إذا كنت ترى أن تعديلك بناء، من فضلك اتصل بإداري، وأخبره بما كنت تحاول أن تفعل. وصف مختصر لقاعدة الإساءة التي طابقها فعلك هو: كتابة تعليقات في المقالات ما حل هذة الرسالة — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahmoudelghazy (talk • contribs) 01:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Attempting to take care of this on my talk page since they posted there as well. It's about a DW deletion. --Majora (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Request edit on a protected page

Hello,

I haven't find any page to request edit on a protected page, so I post here.

I would like to edit {{Image generation}} to make this change :

Replace this line :

  -->{{Commonist|{{{$u|{{{cu|}}}}}}|style=margin:0|logo={{{$l|{{{cl|Commonist2.svg}}}}}}|more={{{$m|{{{$t|{{{ct|.}}}}}}}}}<!--

To this one :

  -->{{Commonist|{{{$u|{{{cu|}}}}}}|style=float:left|logo={{{$l|{{{cl|Commonist2.svg}}}}}}|more={{{$m|{{{$t|{{{ct|.}}}}}}}}}<!--

I request this change for two reasons :

• the parameter margin:0 enter in conflict with the margin:.1em standardized code of {{Created with}}
• the parameter float:left allow the Commonist box to be aligned with all others Created with boxes (who also have this parameter)

Cordially. --Niridya (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. No opposition, so I fulfilled the request. Taivo (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

File:GigaScience principles for reproducible research.jpg

Is it just my computer system that went nuts, or has the actual image disappeared from the Commons server? I can't see any thumbnails or original file. Also, I seem to remember that some weeks ago image content went missing when it was deleted and undeleted. De728631 (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I don't see any issue. Everything OK for me. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@De728631: It appears to have been your computer/browser/session configuration at the time. That file works for me in all offered resolutions.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. My adblocker thought this was spam... De728631 (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Flickr acount dylanbartolinivolk

Seems to upload only "all rights reserved" photos (their own work), except this one:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/dylanbartolinivolk/43914525611/ (uploaded here as File:Alejandra Campoverdi 2018.jpg and copyvio)

I have no idea how the uploader found it on Flickr as it's not tagged and just called "image1", but this account holds nothing useful to us. 56700322@N03 can be added to Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose. Looks like a legitimate photographer who made one of his images CC BY-SA for the purpose of uploading to Commons. I've started a DR regarding the image: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alejandra Campoverdi 2018.jpg. Guanaco (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved- Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Possible problems with User:FlickreviewR 2 bot?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T201800

I'm not sure if this is a bot problem or not, but User:FlickreviewR 2 has been flagging images that are clearly in the public domain (photos taken by an agency of the U.S. federal government and are housed in the U.S. National Archives) which have been clearly identified as such in the Source and Author fields. (I had this happen a few days ago with a photo taken at the Mauthausen concentration camp by a member of the U.S. Army Signal Corps. User:FlickreviewR 2 tagged it with the message "This image was originally posted to Flickr by _______. It has been reviewed on ________ by FlickreviewR 2, which could not determine what the Flickr source image was." I don't have the exact wording of that Flickr tag because the image, was a U.S. NARA image, and had nothing to do with Flickr; that image was then deleted roughly two days later - mistakenly according to the Commons user who performed the deletion and has agreed to support a request for reposting if I choose to make that request.)

The same thing has now happened a second time. User:FlickreviewR 2 just flagged an image I posted earlier today - File:Capt. Eugene W. Ferris, 30th Massachusetts Infantry, c. 1865.jpg with the message "This image was originally posted to Flickr by at https://flickr.com/photos//. It has been reviewed on 2018-08-17 09:26:59 by FlickreviewR 2, which could not determine what the Flickr source image was." Again, this is a NARA image. When I uploaded it, I provided the following Source information: NARA M1064 (Record Group 94): Letters and their enclosures received by the Commission Branch of the Adjutant General's Office, 1863-70. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Archives and Records Adminstration (access provided via The Wikipedia Library and Fold3), retrieved online August 17, 2018."

This image is clearly in the public domain because: a.) the carte de visite was taken in 1865 (Capt. Ferris was a U.S. Medal of Honor winner, is identified in other U.S. military records as having been commissioned as a captain in 1865, and is shown in this photo in his captain's uniform); b.) the image was included in public domain records that were originally produced by the U.S. Office of the Adjutant General, which are now housed at the U.S. National Archives; and c.) the re-use of this photo has been made possible through the Wikimedia Library's partnership with Fold3.

I've uploaded a number of photos before this, and never had a problem until recently. Not being familiar with how this particular bot operates, I'm reporting the issues here per the instructions on User:FlickreviewR 2, "Non-administrators can report misbehaving bots to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard" in case there is a problem with this bot (which there seems to be because it doesn't seem to be able to differentiate between what is and is not a public domain image). I'm also placing a courtesy ping here to the bot's creator, @Zhuyifei1999: . Thank you in advance for taking a look. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

You didn't put a link to the source --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@47thPennVols: File:Capt. Eugene W. Ferris, 30th Massachusetts Infantry, c. 1865.jpg has not been deleted. Why did you think tagging it "{{flickrreview}}{{PD-USGov}}{{PD-USGov}}" was a good idea, if it didn't come from Flickr? What was the first filename, File:Prisoners' Corpses Beside Cart and Barracks, Mauthausen Concentration Camp, May 8, 1945.jpg? That was deleted for not citing a source and still having {{No source since}} after a week.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Jeff G.: Hi, Jeff. Was this reply directed at me or to @Zhuyifei1999: ? (I was the one who posted the images, and am trying to figure out why they were tagged with Flickr tags as not being properly sourced when they were - as NARA images. The public domain licensing message was clearly visible on the page for the Mauthausen image before it was deleted, and is still clearly visible on the Ferris image, yet this Flickr bot labeled both as unsourced - and attached a hidden tag labeling both as unsourced.) This bot seems to be causing unnecessary confusion. 47thPennVols (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@47thPennVols: It was directed at you by indentation and ping. What does either image have to do with Flickr? Why "{{flickrreview}}" in the first place?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 17:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Hi, Jeff. Thanks for the clarification. I've also been trying to ask, "What does either image have to do with Flickr"? Both of these images are public domain images found in the collections of the U.S. National Archives, and have nothing to do with Flickr, but for some reason they were tagged by that Flickr bot, which makes no sense. This tagging has already caused serious problems because the first of the two images was deleted (mistakenly, according to the Commons editor who admitted that he shouldn't have removed the image). I've never had problems with NARA images being tagged this way. (This has only started happening recently.) So, what I'm trying to figure out is if something is wrong with this Flickr bot - which appears to the case. (This could be a huge problem for Commons because there are numerous public domain images from NARA on Commons which have nothing to do with Flickr.) P.S. I'm not the one who tagged the images with the flickreview tag; it was the bot created by @Zhuyifei1999: . 47thPennVols (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Read the diff again before claiming you're "not the one who tagged the images with the flickreview tag" --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I would also appreciate if you could stop pinging me. This page is on my watchlist and there is no need to ping me on every single edit. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: and Zhuyifei1999 I'm honestly not trying to be difficult here. And, Zhuyifei1999, my apologies for pinging you. (I'm still trying to figure out all of the various workings of Commons - like when to use ping vs. the "re|" function.) The reason that I've reached out to you, Zhuyifei1999, is that the User:FlickreviewR 2 bot page which appears to be causing a problem states that you are the operator of that bot. After reading your response above, I'm even more confused because you seem to be indicating that I was the one who tagged the images that I posted with the flickreview tag, but I did not physically attach that flickr tag myself. So, how is this tag being attached and why? Thank you for helping to clear up the confusion. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

{{Re}} does a ping. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

P.S. (adding a clarification here): I uploaded both of these photos using the Commons Upload Wizard, following the designated steps throughout the process. At no point, did the word Flickr appear in anything I was being asked to describe or click on. So, I can't figure out how I could possibly be tagging this image myself. Could there be a problem with the upload wizard if it's not the bot? 47thPennVols (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@47thPennVols: It seems you were not understanding me, so let me be more clear. 09:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC) you used UploadWizard to upload File:Capt. Eugene W. Ferris, 30th Massachusetts Infantry, c. 1865.jpg in this edit. Part of that upload included "{{flickrreview}}" in the wikitext. How do you think your interaction with UploadWizard caused that inclusion? Can you retrace the decisions you made in that interaction?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 00:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Hi, Jeff. Thanks so much for trying to help, and for figuring out that "flickrreview" was somehow added to the wikitext. I have no idea how that text got in there. (I didn't add it.) When I uploaded the photo using the upload wizard, I just followed the step by step instructions. (Starting from the Wikipedia Commons main page, I: a.) clicked the "Upload photo" button, which took me to the upload wizard; b.) clicked on "Next" on the upload wizard page; c.) clicked "Select Media Files to Share", and uploaded the photo; d.) typed in the source and author information (for the Ferris image,I wrote: "NARA M1064 (Record Group 94): Letters and their enclosures received by the Commission Branch of the Adjutant General's Office, 1863-70. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Archives and Records Adminstration (access provided via The Wikipedia Library and Fold3), retrieved online August 17, 2018."; e.) added the description info, date, etc. on the photo's title and description page; f.) selected the U.S. government/public domain option on the licensing page; and g.) hit upload. Any ideas on what could be causing the "flickrreview" text to be added, and why? 47thPennVols (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

When you chose the license in "Release rights" page, did you choose any of the suboptions of "The copyright holder published their photo or video on Flickr with the right license". If not, which one did you choose? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Zhuyifei1999: Thanks for trying to help figure this out. I did what I've done previously when posting public domain photos from the U.S. National Archives. I selected the U.S. government/public domain option on the licensing page (and did not select any suboptions of "The copyright holder published their photo or video on Flickr with the right license"). 47thPennVols (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean the "Original work of the US Federal Government" option under "This work was made by the United States government"? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• I can confirm that I've had the same problem. See for example here and here. Flickr tag and double PD-US-Gov tag for no apparent reason on both. I didn't tag it for jack other than a work of the federal government. Doesn't seem to be a bot issue. The bot is just showing up because the Flickr tag is there. I just don't have any idea why the upload wizard added a Flickr tag and a double PD-US-Gov tag. GMG^talk

• Ok. So I just uploaded File:Test upload 12345.png for shits and giggles. When you select Original work of the US Government it automatically opens another drop down menu and automatically selects The copyright holder published their photo or video on Flickr with the right license. There does not appear to be an option for deselecting the Flickr option. Collapsing the menu does not deselect it, although selecting a Work of NASA does deselect it. So it's applying one PD-US-Gov tag for the "work of US gov" and applying a second one along with the Flickr tag for the Flickr option that you cannot deselect. The only way I see to upload PD-US-Gov with the wizard is to manually type PD-US-Gov. GMG^talk 20:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Filed phab:T202450 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• @GreenMeansGo: You are officially my new hero. Thank you so much for figuring this out. I knew it wasn't anything I was doing on my end, and suspected there was some sort of tech glitch, but couldn't figure out how to articulate it since I don't get to see how Commons' tech works from my vantage point. And my thanks to you both, as well, @Zhuyifei1999: and @Jeff G.: for your insights and willingness to help figure this out. Wishing the three of you all the best. 47thPennVols (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• Now at phab:T201800 GMG^talk 10:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Good news. Thank you. Is there anything else I need to do at this point? 47thPennVols (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• @47thPennVols: You can manually upload the image again, but select custom PD template and enter: {{PD-USArmy}} That's what has worked for my recent uploads. Catrìona (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Coat of Arms of Ardingly College.svg and File:Hill House School coat of arms.svg

1. I just realized after a few years that Coat of Arms of Ardingly College.svg was deleted (by a user that is now banned on all the Wikimedia sites btw) because no OTRS permission was provided, but I made this file myself with Inkscape by using a picture of a stained glass. This isn't even close to the official rendition of the coat of arms as used by the school. Please undelete.
2. Hill House School coat of arms.svg same thing! I made this file myself with Inkscape this ISN'T the official rendition used as a logo by the school, remove the request for OTRS permission please. --RaphaelQS (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@RaphaelQS: Please share the sources of your inspirations.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 19:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: File:Coat of arms of Ardingly College on college window.jpg for Ardingly College and this for Hill House School coat of arms. A comparison of the two coat of arms, please remember coat of arms aren't protected by copyright, only SPECIFIC renditions. --RaphaelQS (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@RaphaelQS: Why do your renditions' filenames and descriptions not specify that they are unofficial?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 02:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Because as far as I know I don't need to. I'm not claiming it's the official rendition. Most of the coat of arms of British institutions in Wikimedia aren't the official renditions. --RaphaelQS (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Not so questionable flickr account

I tried to upload some perfectly fine photographs however was prevented from doing so as the Flickr user is on the "Questionable Flickr images" list with the vague reason being "copyvio". While there are some photographs that I've seen are derivatives of legal artwork, there are photographs that can be uploaded onto Commons, it is up to us (the uploader) to ensure we do not upload photographs that are questionable but to block a whole Flickr account photographs from being uploaded is a little over the top. The Flickr user in question 89165847@N00 / https://www.flickr.com/photos/mikecogh Bidgee (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Bidgee: This one was discussed before at Commons talk:Questionable Flickr images/Archive 6#89165847@N00 and User talk:Ronhjones/Archive 3#Flickr user mikecogh. As noted, unauthorised licensing of derivative works seems to be the issue. Questionable just means questionable, so if you know what you're doing, you may proceed. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks LX, was unable to find the discussion. Though the issue is that I cannot even upload them as the upload process recognises the list and refuses the upload. So I cannot proceed when I hit the same roadblock and have tried all other avenues, with the same results. Bidgee (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bidgee: Try downloading to your computer and uploading with our experienced upload form.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 23:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Jeff, your suggestion isn't do able when using an tablet and when using a computer (laptop or desktop), I don't have the time to download nor space for all the files and add the information. We have other tools that takes the burden off users, example I use the UploadWizard and from time to time flickr2commons. I shouldn't have to use a clumsy, space and time consuming way to upload, which itself has no guarantees of success. Bidgee (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bidgee: You're right. No one is forcing you to upload them, but it would be nice if License Reviewers like us could be excepted from the bad flickr account checks in those tools and flinfo.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 00:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Why I should be forced to use something that is unusable (the fact the license drop down doesn't work makes it more unusable) or totally unusable (for those on tablets). File:Newtown Hotel (12865757984).jpg, I started at 00:04 UTC and finally uploaded at 00:18 UTC (14 minutes just to add one photo). This flickr user shouldn't be on the questionable list. Bidgee (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Well why am I not surprised! Bidgee (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bidgee: Pi reviewed it for you.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 00:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The fact it takes at least 14 minutes and have to raise that it was marked as "bad author" (which doesn't mean it will be re reviewed). Again I'll state this author should be on the list. Bidgee (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Revdel request for overwritten files

Please revdel:

1. third version of File:Ranch dressing.jpg as advert/promotional.
2. intermediate version of File:John lundvik.melodifestivalen2018.18d873.1460243.jpg as a possible copyvio [14] (Photo: Christine Olsson/TT).

Additionally, please let me know the best way to make revdel requests. I used to mark them as copyvio and write the rationale, but at least in one occasion the entire file was deleted. (it was later restored.) 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. I think using {{Speedy}} with a clear rationale is the best option. Non-copyright speedy deletion requests often require more scrutiny anyway, so the danger of accidental deletions is a bit less. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hi Could you delete File:Nina Dobrev at The Promise Premiere in April 2017 01.png. The file is not free. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, We already have a deletion request. It will be deleted in due time. Yann (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for help importing map data from Wikipedia

Hi, would a Commons admin be able to help us at w:en:Template talk:Infobox road#Mapframe maps? Specifically, we want to see if it is possible to move CC-BY-SA map data from Wikipedia to Commons using Special:Import and Special:ChangeContentModel. Thanks, - Evad37 [talk] 00:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy to lend a hand. I'll reply over on en.WP. —RP88 (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Last replacement problem on Edgar Germain Hilaire Degas 018.jpg

File:Edgar Germain Hilaire Degas 018.jpg seems to be almost clearly a copy by Angela Pigioli. Cobalt~frwiki (talk) 09:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted it to the originally uploaded version. —RP88 (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, it seems that it is not the first time that it is asked to that user to stop to upload (overwrite) another versions of paintings or/and of historical images, examples : [15] , [16] or [17], by looking at the upload list [18] we see that the user did not understand. That is an issue, maybe the user should be blocked in order for him to understand that he is on the wrong way. As they don't seems to understand. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Alonso de Mendoza: please revert on the former versions and make your uploads on different files with different titles. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Two more to delete please

Two more WLM test images to be deleted, please:

• File:Berkhamsted - Lock Keepers Cottage - .jpg
• File:Berkhamsted School - .jpg

MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Wrong number of copyvios in admin backlog

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T202833

The Admin backlog currently shows 11 extra pending copyright violations. Purging either the backlog or Category:Copyright violations has no effect. This problem existed yesterday as well. Does anyone have an idea on what is going on and how to fix this problem? Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The (likely) same problem is present when viewing Category:Candidates for speedy deletion; you'll see 11 files listed for Copyright violations‎. Not so new. --Túrelio (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah...I "fixed" it and {{Deletion menu}} as well by subtracting. The number off seems to be permanent so the workaround is fine for now. Categories miscounting is actually an ancient bug first reported in 2008 for large categories. --Majora (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

en-wiki is also suffering en:Template:Admin_dashboard shows 785 for a speedy delete (about 600 too high) - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T195397 Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

File:ANNE PROFILE (2016).jpg

Can one of you look at this image? I am not convinced that the licensing is done properly. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Obvious copyvio is obvious. Deleted. --Majora (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you much. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. --Majora (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

File:STILL LIFE WITH A GARLAND OF ROSES.PNG

tried to upload from http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2011/old-master-early-british-paintings-l11030/lot.187.html - got this error message ".*[НHΗＨⱧ]+[[:punct:] ]*[ΆAÁÀÃÄÂΑАＡ]+[[:punct:] ]*[GＧԌ]+[[:punct:] ]*(?:[ΆAÁÀÃÄÂΑАＡ]|[EЕΕËＥĖ])+[[:punct:] ]*[RＲЯ]+.* <casesensitive> @Special:Upload" -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It appears to be the all caps title, Slowking4. Can you try again without the caps? Or does it have to be that way? --Majora (talk) 02:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Specifically, it doesn't like the string "WITH A GARLAND" thanks to a prolific vandal from a while back. clpo13_(talk) 02:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

thanks. i did not know "with a garland" was a blacklisted phrase. might want to adjust your blocked vocabulary, if it is not serving the purpose any longer. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It's actually the bolded letters, though AFAIK, it hasn't been a significant problem since 2008, at least over on enwiki. clpo13_(talk) 02:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It is also not on any local list. It is globally blacklisted. You can always as over at meta for them to remove it. --Majora (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I've made the request to remove it at meta. Guanaco (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Кирилий

Could someone reply in the same language to the user? These files might be OK, but we need the creator's name and death date to see if they are PD, as there is no FoP in Ukraine for 3D artwork. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for IP block exemption

Could I ask to be given the IP block exemption right, please? I tried editing from my cell phone and there is a gigantic range block on it. It looks like m:Special:GlobalBlockList/2600:387:3:803:0:0:0:0 is affecting me. Commons:IP block exemption says to make the request as a part of an unblock message, but the block doesn't even let me edit my talk page. At :en, I am an admin and I can edit from my cellphone fine from there, so I'm assuming an IP block exemption can bypass this global block. Thanks, --B (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done For same as range block time (1 year) Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

 Thank you. --B (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

mass message for participants of WLE Germany 2018

Hello admins,

please place the text in User:Blech/WLE2018Dank on the discussion pages of the 683 users listed in User:Blech/WLE2018Teilnehmer.

Best regards, --Blech (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Didym (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Vielen Dank. --Blech (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Deletion request

Please delete image. I didn't realize that City Governments were not included in the copyright use. (I read government and clicked on it.) Mrwoogi010 (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Next time just put {{G7}} on the page please. Or click the "Nominate for deletion" button on the side bar. --Majora (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Flickr2Commons problems

Hi, it looks like the Commons:Flickr2Commons tools isnt checking for duplicate images anymore, and a huge amount of dupes appearing currently on commons. I'm busy working on Special:ListDuplicatedFiles since months, and was able to reduce the count from nearby 5000 to under 3000 from about March to June. Then some users started mass uploads creating tons of duplicates. The dupes now often coming in quicker than I am able to process them. See the discusions at i.e. User_talk:Tyler_de_Noche#duplicate_images_again, User_talk:Tyler_de_Noche/Archive_1#uploading_duplicates, User_talk:Hiàn/Archive2#uploading_duplicates and some others. There a lot of (nearby) of of scope images uploaded by some users by flickr2commons as well. I think we are nearby the state that the trouble created by those mass uploads is bigger than the benefit we have because of the addional images. According User:Fæ there are other posssibilities than flickr2commons to do such transfers.

How we can prevent that in the future? Might it be an idea to disable flickr2commons until the dupe bug is fixed? Would that be technicly possible anyhow? Would it be possible to slow down the upload rate to i.e. 1 image per minute and user by flickr2commons? Any other ideas?

Other admins help on Special:ListDuplicatedFiles would be appreciated anyhow. Thx. --JuTa 15:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@JuTa: there have been several discussion about this (if nobody produces the links I'll search for them..), but the main issue is that Magnus Manske doesn't seem to respond to anything. If Flickr2Commons breaks completely tomorrow, we're all fucked. It's a zombie tool. There is no maintainer. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 16:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Well as User:Fæ wrote, there are other tools doing the same tasks. I dont know which, perhap he should note them here. And a zombie tool would be another reason to disable it in my eyes. --JuTa 16:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Admins, license reviewers, and extended uploaders can upload images directly from Flickr with the UploadWizard (Commons:Upload Wizard/Flickr). It does batch uploading and will catch duplicates during the process. I don't know if it compares 1:1 with Flickr2Commons in terms of features, though. There are a couple more options listed at COM:FLICKR#Tools, but I don't have any experience with them. clpo13_(talk) 16:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

+1 And if newbies need permissions we should revisit T90004 Enable Flickr import for all users on Commons. Most contributors are uploading fewer than 1000 images in a project, and doing 50 at a time this way is fine. If we want to create a better F2C (maybe with options to upload from other sources, like DVIDS), I suggest the Community support a development project <ranty bit> and a grant to get it done, rather than eating up/being reliant on free time from increasingly rare tech volunteers who rarely get any thanks for their efforts, and are more likely to get shouty complaints when stuff breaks, especially when breaks are down to WMF shifting the goalposts.</ranty bit>

BTW, no need to create a list, see Commons:Upload_tools#Uploading_from_Flickr. --Fæ (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but every time I've tried to use the Wizard to transfer from Flickr I get a million errors, and have to button mash upload 20 or 30 times to get it to work for the whole batch. So, not exactly a stellar option in my experience. Maybe I've just screwed something up I'm unaware of, or maybe that's a transient bug that's been fixed? GMG^talk 17:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Keep on encouraging Wizard users to take screenshots of all upload problems, especially drop-outs for Flickr, and raise phabricator tickets. If the WMF is going to invest dev time on Commons, this must remain a top priority to improve. --Fæ (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Restrict usage of Flickr2Commons

Commons talk:Flickr2Commons#Flickr2Commons does not check for duplicates (or ignores them)

Flickr2Commons does not check for duplicates (or ignores them) (thread on the talk page of the maintainer, archived without response)

- Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 22:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It isn't exactly right that F2C doesn't check for duplicates at all anymore. Duplicate catching works perfectly fine as long as pictures are uploaded via photo ID or user name (+flickr tags). It doesn't work however when full photosets get transferred by album ID (only gives a error message in case flickr file name got not changed on prior batch upload and thus already exists on commons). --185.232.20.251 12:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

How do you know that?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

You can try with any already imported flickr album you want. For example this one which got imported by Tyler ser Noche two days ago. If you just paste the album ID (72157632015330365) in the corresponding column and hit start it will give you you "0 files currently selected and ready to transfer; 45 have a name issue" in this case, as we're lucky and Tyler didn't change the original flickr file name before his import. But of course pictures often get uploaded on commons under different names than on flickr (which often makes sense when the file name is meaningless, like "IMG 100.jpg") and in those cases F2C won't give any warning that the files might already exist (also if someone decides to e.g. add a prefix the name issue message will disappear of course and duplicates could still be created).

But if you try to get the same 45 pictures of this set by entering username "savannahcorps" and e.g. flickr tag "GIS" (which in this case works because exactly those 45 files from savannahcorps flickr stream got tagged with GIS, in much more cases there might be different tags for pictures of the same photoset or not any tags at all) it gives "0 files currently selected and ready to transfer; 0 have a name issue. Hide 45 files already on Commons". So in this case duplicate catching still works fine. --185.212.171.13 15:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

While illuminating that did not answer Jeff's question. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Mass message request for WLM-US

Hello! I'm one of the organizers for Wiki Loves Monuments in the US. Could the follow message be sent out to all of last year's contributors?

• Target: Listed at Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2018 in the United States/Messages/Invitation to 2017 participants/Recipients
• Subject: Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States – Back for 2018!
• Body:: {{subst:Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2018 in the United States/Messages/Invitation to 2017 participants}} ~~~~~

Thank you! ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 08:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Didym (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Accidental User Page Move

In browsing through the menu of commands, I appear to have accidentally moved my Professionalgeek user page into the aether. This immediately logged me out, and appears to have deleted/hidden all of my edit history. I there any way to restore it? Professionalgeek (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Professionalgeek. Are you looking for your userpage/contributions on Wikimedia Commons specifically, or are you looking for the version on the English Wikipedia, because it looks like this is the first edit you've ever made on Commons. GMG^talk 14:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Professionalgeek version on the English Wikipedia, please. Professionalgeek (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Professionalgeek. You can find that by following this link. It seems you may have wandered onto Commons by accident, which you may have done by clicking on an image used on the English Wikipedia, and being taken here without realizing it. GMG^talk 14:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

thanks. Its back now. Or was never gone, and I just got lost, as you suggest. Either way, order is restored.Professionalgeek (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect location description

Dear Administrators,

The location on the following link says "Hawa Mahal known as Roothi Rani Ka Mahal, Veerpura (Jaisamand)" which is incorrect.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Front_view_of_the_Hawa_Mahal.jpg

This is known as "Hawa Mahal" and is in "Jaipur, Rajasthan, India", not "Roothi Rani Ka Mahal, Veerpura (Jaisamand)". I request you to please correct the information.

Best Regards, Devendra — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.177.60.192 (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You may edit File:Front view of the Hawa Mahal.jpg as you edited here.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 08:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Something entire wikimedia should look into IMMEDIATELY:

It seems that the complainant here is banned on English Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia, and other projects. Their accounts are globally locked on sight. As administrators of Commons, we can't do anything to change this. We also can't control reverts and other edits on other projects. Freddy/BoxingWear/"George Reeves Person": Please contact me privately if you want to discuss this further. At this time, trying to edit Wikimedia projects will only hurt your case. Guanaco (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

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

---

Users like Vermont, xenrose, plyrstar93 want to become administrators, just check their contributions:

Xenrose reverts things without explanation, she has many accounts & yet she came back with knowedge how to avoid another block.

www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=IAebW4HTH-vIjwTt-5WoAQ&q=xenrose+talk&btnK=Google+Search&oq=xenrose+talk&gs_l=psy-ab.3...6197.12560..13087...4.0..0.67.784.17......0....1..gws-wiz.......0j0i131j0i10j33i160j0i13.qVKf4caxs9c

Vermont is only an administrator on simple Wikipedia, yet he reverts everything:

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vermont

plyrstar93 is all over internet, especially on wikimedias:

www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=cwibW6rnKpCgjwSBxZDoDw&q=user+plyrstar93&btnK=Google+Search&oq=user+plyrstar93&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160.3828.9500..9805...0.0..0.118.876.13j2......0....1..gws-wiz.......0j0i131j0i10j0i22i30j0i22i10i30j0i13i5i30j0i8i13i30j0i8i13i10i30j0i13i30j0i13.Z-pFbUvn3ZI

thus: xenrose, plyrstar93, Vermont want to become sysops badly, u sysops need to institute new rule if its possible at all on Wikipedia: don't allow wannabe sysops to revert everything, including good talk pages just so they can impress (like fr33kamn, hersostratus, antandrus, bsadowsk1 did to become sysops) u. their actions contribute to downfall of entire Wikimedia!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorsproblem (talk • contribs) 01:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

This is Wikimedia Commons, a central repository for freely-licensed media files. It is not a central repository for user disputes. It is a normal, accepted practice to revert off-topic discussion on talk pages. If you have a specific complaint about something that happened on Wikimedia Commons, please elaborate. Also, when posting here, it is expected that you notify the users involved in your dispute. I will do this now. Guanaco (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I don’t know Commons’s policy on closing discussions. Could we close this, or immediately archive it? Vermont (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN.WHEN I REPORTED THE PROBLEM U WIKIPEDOIDIOTS BLOCKEDF ME. THAT WILL NEVER RESOLVE PROBLEM.OF COURSE VERMONT WANTS THIS GONE CUZ HE KNOWS HE DID MANY BAD THINGS ON WIKIAS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorsproblem2 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

---

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

Please undelete this file: File:Coat of Arms of Ardingly College.svg

I made it myself using this picture of a centuries-old stained glass File:Coat_of_arms_of_Ardingly_College_on_college_window.jpg --RaphaelQS (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Requests for undeletion go here. Jcb (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jcb. --RaphaelQS (talk) 11:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Found a brochure in my files announcing the EXAR-1 electric car

I scanned it to pdf and would like to post it into the EXAR-1 entry. It is four pages (8 1/2 in. X 11 in.) I see no copyright mark anywhere on the four pages. Amectran logo with a leading eagle is at the bottom of the back page. I must have picked it up at a trade show in those days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idealogger (talk • contribs) 14:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy 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.

@Idealogger: If it was published after 1977, lacking of the copyright notice is most likely irrelevant. See COM:Hirtle chart for more information. Ankry (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

From en-wiki The Amectran Exar-1 was an electric car developed by Edmond X. Ramirez, Sr. in 1979. Suspect in copyright until 2075. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Mistake in infobox

In the infobox for Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank, eg, like Category:Shim'a, it says that the places are in Israel. This is not correct, not even the Israeli government claims that.

So how can you change what is inside the infobox? --Huldra (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The infobox on many categories is populated by Wikidata (with {{Wikidata infobox}}), so the information would need to be changed at the relevant Wikidata item; for this category, it's d:Q246963. The country property is probably what you want. clpo13_(talk) 20:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Ping Bovlb, who it seems added it. GMG^talk

@GreenMeansGo: Thanks for the ping. It appears that I added country=Israel to this item because it has a "located in the administrative territorial entity" link to "Judea and Samaria Area", which in turn has a "country" link to "Israel". I don't mean to make incorrect claims about Shim'a, but if it is not in Israel, then ontologically that suggests that one of the two claims above must also be false. This being the case, there are likely to be other places similarly affected. I am not an expert in the region, so I await your advice. Bovlb (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

No worries Bovlb, just didn't want to wade into a contentious issue one sided. Looks like the issue is with Judea and Samaria Area. From the en.wiki article: It is for some purposes regarded by Israeli authorities as one of its administrative regions, although the international community considers the West Bank to be a territory held by Israel under military occupation. So basically a sticky situation for something like Wikidata. No idea how something like that would be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, or if it even can be. GMG^talk 21:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking more closely, I see that the link from Judea and Samaria Area" to "Israel" has no fewer than 7 "statement disputed by" qualification, which should give anyone pause in relying on it. (I note these were added after my changes.) I'm going to see if I can find more cases of this sort. Bovlb (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

This query produces 870 items that are asserted to be in Israel with no dispute, but where a geo-container has dispute qualifiers on its corresponding claim. They all seem to be either in Judea and Samaria Area, or in Jerusalem. I could go ahead and remove all of these undisputed claims, if that seems to be the right thing to do. (I could also copy across the dispute qualifiers, but that seems like a maintenance nightmare waiting to happen). I'm going to leave a little more time for discussion before I take action. In particular, Jerusalem seems tricker, because different claims apply to different parts, but many of the items are likely located in only one part. Bovlb (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

What if we just added an item for "disputed"? GMG^talk 23:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I could copy the seven "statement disputed by" qualifiers from "Judea and Samaria Area" onto all the individual locations, but I am reluctant to do this because this seems inherently ephemeral and it makes it harder to make changes later. Imagine (just for the sake of argument) that next week the United States withdrew its disputation of this claim. Better to do this in one place than in hundreds. Also, I don't think that adding disputed statement qualifiers would actually resolve the OP's problem, unless your infobox code is checking for such qualifiers. Bovlb (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bovlb: I would suggest asking at d:Wikidata:Project chat about the best practice for recording this kind of situation is on Wikidata. Once that's figured out, then we can figure out how to incorporate that logic in the code that the infobox uses to display the locations. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. See wikidata:Wikidata:Project_chat#P17_country_and_disputed_claims. Bovlb (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with "West Bank"?--Bolter21 (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I have removed 116 country=Israel assertions for places and events in the Judea and Samaria Area. @Huldra: has already removed the country=Israel assertion with all its dispute qualifiers from Judea and Samaria Area itself. Hopefully this resolves the OP's issue. Sorry for taking so long. Bovlb (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)