Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 67

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

Renaming

Since when is asking the renaming of a file for capitalizing a proper noun "does not comply with renaming guidelines"? --E4024 (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. Mistakes happen. I renamed the file. Taivo (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Taivo; of course mistakes happen. Especially when people work a lot. I'm a live witness to that! (I mean I make many mistakes. :) If I'm not abusing your time, please also have a look at the edition history of File:Seğmenler park , Ankara , Turkey - panoramio.jpg. Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done Renamed the other too. Taivo (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Bathyscaphe Trieste Piccard-Walsh.jpg

This image: "https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bathyscaphe_Trieste_Piccard-Walsh.jpg" is not in the public domain, and is listed as such incorrectly. The photograph is by John Launois, © The Estate of John Launois.

Possibly true (I don't know, didn't look into it) but I did not review that nor does it address something genuinely being in the Public Domain. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I believe the OP intended this to be a new topic—section header added above.

Flickr and PD licences

Resolved

Hi, Sixflashphoto a new licence reviewer is approving Flickr images with "Public Domain Mark" licenses - Do we accept PD images now or is the editor incorrect in approving these ?
FWIW I've always been told that to accept PD images here the uploader here needs to get permission from the Flickr uploader (which is why I've never uploaded PD images or have had them speedied),
I'm not looking for sanctions - Just clarity (and rollback SFP if they're incorrect), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

If I did something wrong please tell me. If it's wrong I'll happily change/rollback my edits. For what it's worth they were all from the Flickr accounts of the USDA and United States Navy Band which linked to their respective websites. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
We do not accept Public Domain Mark from Flickr, but if a reviewer can find evidence for valid PD reason, like {{PD-1923}} or, as in this case, {{PD-USGov-USDA}}, then the file should be fine. Jcb (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Davey2010 and Jcb. I do appreciate the clarification. I just don't want to mark something approved that shouldn't be. I'm glad that Flickr images marked with {{PD-USNavy}} other proper works from the US GOV on flickr needing human review can be approved or someone should file several thousand DR's in that category alone. I would rather help reduce a backlog then contribute to a problem that creates a new one. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Ahhhhhh right, See I probably should've read COM:Public_domain before coming here!, As I said I just assumed these files weren't allowed full stop, Okie dokie thanks all. –Davey2010Talk 00:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Bot approval request

Hi everybody. I'd be really grateful if somebody could sign off the first half of the JhealdBot (4) request, which I hope per the examples in the discussion there I have now done enough to demonstrate is good to go. The more involved stuff -- migrating templates, creating new category descriptions -- can wait, I still need to show test runs for that. But it would be really good if somebody could now authorise the simpler stuff -- i.e. adding/removing categories, adding/modifying fields in descriptions, all on quite a limited set of images -- as per the approval runs now documented. As per the page, there are a few runs that are now all lined up, that it would be good to get executed. I'll come back for the rest of the request when I have got some sample edits to show. Thanks! Jheald (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Commonist

Will the page for commonist, specifically the part about other wikis, be updated? It is obselete and the subpage (Commons:Commonist/Other Wikis) as well is unhelpful since it says that version after 0.4 is obselete. I wish to use Commonist on wikia but its stuck to 1 wikia. How do I use it to upload to other wikis? Artix Kreiger (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Requires review I think

The contributions here need looking at. The alteration of the sock template info has me thinking bad thoughts. It would seem as though this account may also be a sock. I've not reverted the user page edits (nor any others) until someone else has taken a look. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

This is classic behaviour from INeverCry, and if it isn't, it is someone else who is avoiding a block and needs to be blocked. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Globally blacklisted files.wordpress.com

A notice to admins that I recently globally blacklisted files.wordpress.com due to a ferocious and broad WMF-wide spambot attack. There will be consequences with that while it is blacklisted. I am unsure whether it is just a temporary measure, or whether it is has anything more than occasional inconvenience. At the moment there seem to be about 4000 links to that domain (special:linksearch/*.files.wordpress.com, 2000- links and special:linksearch/https://*.files.wordpress.com, 2000+ links). If this blacklisting is seen as not acceptable to Commons needs then we should whitelist some or all of the sub-domains in Mediawiki:spam-whitelist. If you are prepared to wait some days to see whether the spamming stops/has stopped then we need do nothing. Look forward to hearing your opinions, especially in light that it is not an authoritative domain for source files.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Sensible action - review in a few days for me. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Need review

Someone should... probably take a look at these uploads by User:Shaxbozmustafayev. Some of them are fairly obvious COM:SS violations. Some of them are logos that are simple enough to probably be permitted, but are overall just lower quality duplicates that no one should really need reason to use, like File:Word logo2013.jpg as an uncontroversially lower quality version of File:Microsoft Word logo.png. If someone wants to clean up the blatant problems, I don't have a problem with sorting through and correctly tagging what's left, but this seems easier than leaving them 20 talk page templates. GMGtalk 13:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted everything. Nothing here consisted of merely simple shapes and letters; everything was complex enough for protection. Nyttend (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Umm... no offense Nyttend, but if none of the are simple enough to fall below TOO, then why are we retaining a copy of File:Microsoft Word logo.png?
Because it was improperly kept at DR. It's much more complex than mere text or an individual shape or two, so it should have been deleted. Nyttend (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll tell you what... I've seldom seen opinions vary more wildly than I've seen opinions here on what constitutes TOO. GMGtalk 20:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Panoramio human Review

Dear Admins/reviewers,

I ordered panoramio reviews on 20 unreviewed panoramio images which were never marked. If they appear in the above category, can someone mark them please? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. Guanaco (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

These images

Dear Admins,

I believe that most of these images have large copyright problems without a COM:OTRS permission statement. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Npd tag after a month

Please consider deleting this file File:Mohsen Namjoo Concert MIT.jpg which has been tagged with {{Npd}} for more than a month. 4nn1l2 (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done PumpkinSky talk 04:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio uploads

All images uploaded by Mirza sf are copyvios, simply taken from Daihatsu and Toyota's Indonesian websites. Uploader has listed the urls where they took them from. Please delete promptly. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 06:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers: I tagged the files and notified the uploader. You could have done that.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose so. I had figured there was a shortcut available to admins. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 07:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Remove user permissions

Hi, I would like to have the permissions I have on my account (File Renaming, Rollback, Patrol) removed and my account also be blocked. Currently it is difficult for me to edit on these sides, so I decided to leave this project. Thanks Leitoxx Work • Talk • Mail 14:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked your account. No need to remove the permissions; they're disabled due to the block. If you decide to return at some point, you can use {{Unblock}} on your talk page and we'll unblock you. Guanaco (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of redirection

Hi, can someone please delete this redirection (File:https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Constantin,_Cheynet_N%C3%AEmes_vers_1876.jpg&redirect=no) and rename this file (File:Soldat Francais, Nîmes vers 1876.jpg) to again File:Constantin, Cheynet de Beaupré, Nîmes vers 1876.jpg) wich is the correct name Κοινὴ διάλεκτος (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done PumpkinSky talk 20:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikimania 2017 banner

Hello! Wikimania 2017 banner on the top of each page is shown for me, but Wikimania 2017 is over. Maybe Wikimania 2018 was meant? Fix it, please. --TohaomgTohaomg (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Sirdskalns.jpg

Dear Admins,

Can this used image be deleted and reuploaded? The person on Commons uploaded the low resolution version of the image on Latvian Wikipedia...which is in quite high resolution. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: I overwrote with the full size quite high resolution version.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

File:NH State Representative Amanda Bouldin.jpg

If someone thinks the permission is acceptable for Commons, feel free to mark the image...on the assumption that the photographer gave the rights to this representative. Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding XTools to RFA

Hi, Apologies for this being in the wrong place but not entirely sure where to ask (asked at Commons talk:Administrators),
Is there any chance we could add Xtools contribs here ? (Ie https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/commons.wikimedia.org/Davey2010 without the username) ?,
I use XTools at EN as well as here and for judging RFA participants it'd be easier if there was a link to this,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Could it simply be added to Template:User14? --Schlurcher (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Schlurcher, Simply put I'm afraid of messing something up so kinda wanted an admin to do it, Not only that I didn't wanna BE BOLD incase there were objections, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@Davey2010 and Schlurcher: This is a good idea, but more appropriate names would be "ec", "edits", "editcount", "edit count", "editcounter", "Edit Counter", and "xtools Edit Counter" in size order.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think this is a great idea. While anybody can support or oppose based on their own criteria, and are free to use whatever tools help them come to an opinion, I think adding a link would have the effect of implying an official endorsement of edit counts as a valid means of judging a candidate for administrator. In some cases of users with few edits, an edit count-based objection may be valid, but in those cases the low edit count will be obvious from a cursory look anyway. Without patting ourselves too much on the back, I think we are generally relatively grown up about our RFAs on Commons, and I think that while adding an edit count link is only a very small change, I think it is a small nudge in the wrong direction. Basing your opinion on more data is good, but I think the effect to be more likely encouraging the use of data as a crutch to a shallow or cursory opinion. I would support this if I had ever felt "my, this discussion could use more summary edit count statistics"... not only have I never felt that way about a Commons RFA, I cannot imagine feeling that way about one. Storkk (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
On the occasion: I've now added XTools on a user-script -- User: Perhelion 18:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Flag of Mariánské Lázně.svg

Please, restore this file. It was deleted as duplicate, but it is (unofficial) flag of another town and looks similar. JAn Dudík (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Taivo (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I own this book first published in the United Kingdom: Isaac Steinberg (1935), Spiridonova: revolutionary terrorist. London: Methuen & company. The book contains 21 illustrations, most of which are ordinary-life photos of Spiridonova, her prison companions, her friends, and so on. They bear no copyright references and no names of any author are reported, either in the frontispiece and its back page or near each illustration. Since I'd like to try to scan and upload some of the photos, I wonder whether it is allowed (by using template 'Template:PD-UK-unknown' or how else?). The author of the book died in 1957; he was a former Soviet Minister of Justice and a political comrade and friend of Spiridonova. He must have gathered the photos during his life in Russia and later through correspondence. I do not know what kind of further research I could carry out to try to find the authors of the photos. Thank you very much in advance.--Jeanambr (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Every photo in Commons must be free in two countries: USA and source country. If the photos are anonymous, then they are free in source country (UK or Russia), but due to URAA maybe not in USA. URAA demands 95 years from publication, which has not passed. But if some photos in the book are published before 1923 (wherever), then 95 years have passed and the photos can be in Commons. Taivo (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much.--Jeanambr (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Reverse image

File:GUU-5P Carbine (7414627680).jpg

This image (File:GUU-5P Carbine (7414627680).jpg) has been reversed. This is the left side on this type of rifle, not the right. Can someone reverse the image to the correct orientation. Thank you.--RAF910 (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Fuzheado: You uploaded it, any comments?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. This is taken exactly from the Air Force flickr account, so the error would be theirs. [1] I'm not averse to flipping the image. -- Fuzheado (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who made the mistake. The image needs to be flipped.--RAF910 (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

RAF910 is right, the image shows the left side of the rifle. I flipped it (please flush the browser cache if you like to see it...). --Sputniktilt (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jarekt (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Mass Deletion of Images in this Category?

The Azadi Tower in Tehran was built in the early 1970's by the archiect Hossein Amanat who is still alive. Since Iran has no FOP it would appear that the hundreds of images in this category should be deleted. Does anyone know how to do this mass DR? Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: Sorry, copyright expired in 2002.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jarekt (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

File history edit request

If at all possible, could someone who has access to image file history comments please make a small edit for me? It's only a very small issue, but I've accidentally inserted a <br /> in my edit summary at File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015 by Joel Rouse (MoD).jpg which doesn't render properly, and I'd like to have changed for a space (or a line break, if possible). The summary currently reads, "Developed in Adobe Camera Raw using the following settings:<br />Exposure +1.4 EV, Saturation -25%, Noise reduction: Luminance 50, Luminance Detail 50, Color 50, Color Detail 50." I realize that this is a trifling issue, but the reason I uploaded the files was to remove any and all ambiguity as to what alterations I made to the original file, and I think the <br /> may be confusing to some people. Thank you in advance. nagualdesign 05:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not think that field is editable. I also do not think it is much of a problem. --Jarekt (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

File:White parrot on perch stock photo.png

Can someone give the right license for this image and perhaps pass it? It might be Copyright free but I'm not sure. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: It appears to be "©2015-2018 annamae22" with some nonstandard terms that are not free enough.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Does the word "do not use my stock photos to create new stock" mean do not create a derivative image from my own photo? If so, Commons cannot keep this photo. PS: Sometimes, I am scared of marking these kinds of photos without a clear license. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: Yes, I'm afraid so.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
It might also be taken to mean “do not host in a collection,” which would also be obviously incompatible with Commons.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thank You. I will file a DR here. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 07:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Two: (1) Administrative collaboration to delete a properly submitted file on the publicly declared unlawful grounds of administrative religious prejudice. (2) Gross administrative incompetence.

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.

Regarding the Wiki-documented religious based prejudicial deletion of: 'File:Saturn - 4 photo enhancements by David Albert Harrell.jpg'

On 31 December 2017 ... Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) wrote: “Finally, your work is a useless montage. While the images are beautiful, your editorial comments about "the gods" make it impossible for it to be used on Commons or almost anywhere else. One of the many points of agreement among Christians, Jews, and Muslims is that there is one God and your assertion that "gods" have created this beauty is offensive. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)” ---end quote---

Be aware, this 'deletion event' is now an matter of religious persecution, i.e. multiple inquiries are being lodged outside of this domain; Administrators et al are hereby so informed of these notifications, on this signature date.

As of 8 January 2018, anyone, regardless of their Wiki authority, attempting to silence me would be going on record as suppressing evidence and testimony, which may as of 8 January 2018 be considered by third parties as obstructing justice, a completely separate and felonious act, which I would (in the event I am 'edit blocked') petition be fully pursued regardless of the final disposition of this case.

First, in total disregard of both the Summary and my comments Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) erroneously declared my work to be “a useless montage” which represents two false statements in as many words, both issues being well refuted in the Summary, DR, and unDR dialog, these refutations being a matter of record.

Moreover during the unDR dialog Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) declared my entry was unacceptable because it did not adhere to the 'monotheistic beliefs' of three popular religions which he apparently approves of, and then actually goes on to name, finally declaring multi-theistic religious belief to be “offensive”.

My subsequent offer to remove the 'poetic gods reference' was completely ignored (copied and linked below from Wiki transcript).

Furthermore I contest every word of the most recent administrative comment written by Green Giant (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC) appearing on my talk page. This comment is an obfuscating misrepresentation of the Wiki recorded facts. The onus is not on me to endow literacy, competence, or integrity on this forum. I further acknowledge the authoritative abusive of unwarranted threats within said comment, attempting to intimidate me, and also to deny my Wiki Commons provided recourse to state a grievance.

So far this blatant injustice is receiving single digit exposure, a half dozen or so of the very administrators in question. If unable to be heard on this low traffic platform, I will simply add this 'edit blocking' threat and subsequent 'edit block' to the ongoing string of cover-up comments, deletions, acts, and procedural omissions; and I will continue alerting the community to this prejudicial affront to religious freedom, well promoted on major social networks reaching thousands, comprehensively with names, dates, links, and details, i.e. a summarizing laymen friendly version of this current document.

So Green Giant (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC you don't actually have the ability to delete my www voice, conversely I suspect you'll force me to greatly amplify my noble quest for truth, justice, and equitable religious tolerance on this Wikimedia platform.

Comradery and self-righteous religious prejudice are not valid reasons for deleting submissions. There are many non sequitur moments in the administrative dialog of this case, obscurations in support of a comrade's serious blunder; however the isolable administrative edict “there is one god” pasted above is a standalone declaration of unlawful religious prejudice.

The absurd administrative position here is hopeless. Nevertheless I will afford you one last opportunity to restore integrity to these proceedings.

I suggest at his point that any competent administrator who wishes to correct this Wikimedia error and avoid a hurricane of litigation, reopen the unDR and encourage me to upload a revised version of my file, within which I will correct all legitimate stated concerns, you may of course nominate the file for deletion with valid grounds, this time however the process hopefully will continue without declared administrative religious prejudice.

If you don't invite this resubmission, then do us all a favor and at least get some legal assistance before you dig yourself and Wikimedia in deeper, show a Wiki (or any) attorney the astonishing 'monotheistic proclamation', the opening paragraph (pasted above and linked below) that was written into the dialog by Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) and cited as a reason for deleting my file. This one consultation will end the confusion here, and avoid wasting more of everyone's time.

Wiki's legal personnel will gladly advise you, they certainly would not wish to condone such an articulately defined and well documented ongoing assault on religious freedom, being to some degree culpable for the unlawful acts of entities they empower.

Notice that this prejudicial comment is not going to disappear from the record, regardless of how many administrators currently wish to pretend it does not exist.

Any administrator who wants to publicly condemn or condone the actions and comments of Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) which resulted in 'the deletion event' of DavidHarrell's entry into the Wiki Science Competition 2017, i.e. 'File:See More Saturn.. as the gods painted it.jpg', I encourage them to do so on this page and/or what ever pages are deemed appropriate.

One may consider this a generous but time-sensitive opportunity to disassociate themselves from an administrator who has publicly proclaimed and applied his own religious bias to his Wiki Commons authority and decision making process, verbally citing his stated 'religious prejudice' as justification for a given 'file deletion'.

Moreover, the silence of a given participating Administrator regarding this opportunity may be construed as an affirmation of direct involvement, to wit, having begun testimony in recorded dialog, including self-implicating comments and signature support. Ergo 'no reply' may be considered 'complicity and consent' by third parties.

Unfortunately, since I suspect my resubmitting plan above will be declined, and because my voice on this media has been unjustly threatened by the very administrators involved, and yet further considering the well documented rush to bury the DR and unDR pages in archives, I am forced to continue my case in detail below, here and now. I apologize for the length of this document, and any unavoidable information redundancies.

Below is a more detailed explanation of this deletion proceedings, including a compilation of Wiki transcripts which depict and verify this transparent act of deliberate and ongoing religious persecution.

---

This document details gross administrative incompetence and unlawful religious prejudice pertaining to the disposition of both the DR and unDR representing 'File:Saturn - 4 photo enhancements by David Albert Harrell.jpg', a file I uploaded for the 'Wiki Science Competition 2017'.

Looking into Wiki policy I discovered that if I am opposed to a given administrative decision, I can open a dialog expressing my grievance on 'Editing Commons:Administrators' noticeboard'.

But within hours of the unDR closing I was threatened with 'edit blocking' on my talk page by Green Giant (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC) who also falsely accused me of disruption and harassment, which the record clearly shows is not true; these false charges being a transparent excuse to threaten me and my right of grievance through legitimate Wiki-provided channels, i.e. my option to protest a decision and illuminate the details for consideration by third unbiased parties.

Such intimidation of course is intended to remove all 'administrative accountability', precisely the media quality that Wiki policy is trying to preserve with the 'Editing Commons:Administrators' noticeboard'. Final disposition is up to third parties to decide, entities outside of this mutually unaccountable administrator's group, and if necessary outside of Wiki domain.

I am willing to sacrifice my Wiki account to (with this single document) finally consolidate the Wiki Commons records providing evidence of this ongoing religious persecution. So for the record, Green Giant (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)'s threats to permanently silence my voice have only added to this document, which continues below in its entirety. Such unjustified threats only further highlight administrative concerns over additional dialog exchange on this subject.

The aforementioned deleted file/entry 'File:Saturn - 4 photo enhancements by David Albert Harrell.jpg' was intended to widely introduce a new imaging technique which has already been used in medical diagnosis, also having applications in many other fields. I mentioned this medical application in my last comment, which was completely ignored, merely answered with a threat to 'edit block' my account.

The record shows that my upload and entry to 'Wiki Science Competition 2017' was deleted and then denied unDR principally by administrator Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward).

I filed an unDR.

During the brief course of this unDR dialog (closed after only two days) I fully complied with all “four reasons”given by Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward)'s for deleting this file (see the Commons link or the last paste, both provided below). Yet my solutions went unanswered or even addressed. Hours later, and within two days of my opening the unDR, it was denied and closed.

As the Commons record shows, the moment I clearly satisfied all four of Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward)'s stated objections, he broke off dialog and closed my unDR. I note that the majority of the unDRs currently on the unDR page have been there for weeks. Reading the dialog below reveals exactly what the big hurry was about.

The unDR is locatetd here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&diff=276089060&oldid=276073744

The DR is locatetd here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:See_More_Saturn.._as_the_gods_painted_it.jpg

I have pasted below a copy of Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward)'s stated “four reasons”from the log of the unDR, along with my fully compliant and totally ignored replies. None of these “four reasons” Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) declared for deleting the file, were even mentioned in the DR before the deletion. All 'four objections' were definitively answered in the unDR, before the unDR was denied and closed.

begin paste of Wiki record, unavoidably containing some redundancy, see link above------

On 1 January 2018 ... Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) wrote: Above, I gave four reasons for not restoring the image,"

Readdressing these four in order.

On 31 December 2017 ... Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) wrote: “*First, to the extent (which is unclear) that you have modified these images, they are personal art and out of the scope of Commons.”

These enhancement are by no stretch of any definition either a “montage” or some kind of “art”, personal or otherwise.

One cannot add to an image with a global enhancement, one can only discover discrepancies in the way given fields reflect light, the cause of the discrepancy being the implied question of great interest in many venues.

A global enhancements can greatly expand the definition of a given image, with applications to a wide variety of fields. Non global changes are of course useless, but none have been made in my work, another fact which I am prepared to prove.

At this stage if you still cannot appreciate the value of these global enhancements, I would suggest you consult with persons trained in an imaging related science. My point being you should at least somehow become aware at this point, that you are not dealing with some frivolous art form here, but a new enhancement technology with far reaching applications.

On 31 December 2017 ... Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) wrote: “*Second the two JPL images require credit, which you did not give. Third, the JPL copyright page says, ::"JPL/Caltech contractors and vendors who wish to use JPL images in advertising or public relation materials should direct requests to the Institutional Communications Office, email [email protected]." :That means that the images are not free for any use by anyone anywhere, which is a requirement of Commons.”

(same as above) Without endorsing the validity of your interpretations of the licensing language, I can delete the two JPL files and, with the remaining two Commons sourced images, still introduce a revelation in image enhancement.

On 31 December 2017 ... Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) wrote: “*Finally, your work is a useless montage. While the images are beautiful, your editorial comments about "the gods" make it impossible for it to be used on Commons or almost anywhere else. One of the many points of agreement among Christians, Jews, and Muslims is that there is one God and your assertion that "gods" have created this beauty is offensive.”

My cosmic comments in the summary are irrelevant to scientific applications of this discovery and obviously could have been removed, had they actually been discussed on the deletion page, which the page clearly shows they were not, nor were any of your final reasons for removing my entry. Without agreeing with your personal analysis and objections to my poetic references to ancient non-monotheism, I am willing to either rewrite the phraseologies in question, or if necessary delete them altogether.

I believe this edit answers all of your concerns and warrants the restoration of my file in a revised fashion, which I am prepared to produce upon your agreement to restore said corrected file.

If you still have questions or concerns regarding my entry I am prepared to address them.

DavidHarrell 04:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC) ---end paste---

My objective here is to have this bias decision overturned, produce a revised file, and have it reinstated. This after meeting the final revision requirements that I listed in the undR dialog, which were based on the presumably valid copyright stipulations of Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward).

Moreover it is my considered opinion that this case clearly demonstrates that Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) is not qualified to hold administrative authority in Commons, or any platform hosting persons who may not agree with his publicly posted personal religious standards. This also calls into doubt the suitability of any administrator who rubber stamped this tag-team unlawful assault on common sense and religious freedom, particularly in cases where alignment continues in the face of this body of transcript supported facts.

This notice therefore is also a nomination for the De-adminship of Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) due to well documented administrative incompetence, and unlawful and blatant attempts to impose on me admitted personal religious prejudices, resulting in the unjustified deletion of my entry into the Wiki Science Competition 2017.

Notice that not a single critical point I made during the entire supposed 'discussion/debate' is refuted, addressed, or even acknowledged by any of the five 'administrators' that chimed in to support this premeditated attack on 'common sense' and Freedom of Speech. None of my responses to Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward)'s “four reasons” were even acknowledge, let alone discussed or debated.

Realistically I have no delusions concerning the 'Mutually Assured Protection' policies of this tiny clique of petty authority, which has already combined to delete my entry without just cause or due process. I don't expect any cooperation at this stage of compiling the well documented evidence of this prejudicial debauchery, and prematurely closed compilation of administrative blunders.

This 'notice page' will of course be archived with great haste (my unDR lasted about 48 hours); it will however serve as a summary of this gross bastardization of Wiki Commons policies and Free Speech, to which I can refer third parties such as Federal and international authorities concerned with violations of civil and human rights.

As stated above, even before I began writing this comment, on my talk page Green Giant (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC) threatened to end my Freedom of Speech and testimony in this case (remove my Commons tongue) by 'edit blocking'; this being a failed attempt to stop me from publishing this current document disclosing the details of these felonious and easily verifiable administrative abuses of authority, as I clearly revealed my intent to so expose this injustice in my last unDR comment before the closing of my unDR only hours later, DavidHarrell (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC).

Poor administrative judgment continues if Green Giant (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC) believes this threat or 'edit blocking' will silence me. This pathetic sandbagging only reiterates 'the default position all along' of covering up this matter of blatant authoritative abuse.

So assuming the cover-up continues, this will probably be my last comment on Commons until this maters has been equitably resolved and my rights restored.

DavidHarrell (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@DavidHarrell: I looked into the deletion & undeletion request. Both requests are correctly closed as deleted & not done. The file is clearly out of COM:SCOPE. You wrote "Gross administrative incompetence" etc, i have to ask you to moderate your language and to COM:AGF and remain COM:MELLOW. If you continue you may be blocked. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
TL;DR - No one is going to sit here and read 65 paragraphs of waffle - Keep it short and to the point. –Davey2010Talk 18:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since I suspect my resubmitting plan above will be declined, and because my voice on this media has been unjustly threatened by the very administrators involved, and yet further considering the well documented rush to bury the DR and unDR pages in archives, I am forced to continue my case in detail, here and now. I apologize for the length of this document, and any unavoidable information redundancies.

DavidHarrell (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC) DavidHarrell (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not going anywhere. Jcb (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Re: Notice of Two: (1) Administrative collaboration to delete a properly submitted file on the publicly declared unlawful grounds of administrative religious prejudice. (2) Gross administrative incompetence.

Bold text@DavidHarrell: I looked into the deletion & undeletion request. Both requests are correctly closed as deleted & not done. The file is clearly out of COM:SCOPE. You wrote "Gross administrative incompetence" etc, i have to ask you to moderate your language and to COM:AGF and remain COM:MELLOW. If you continue you may be blocked. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC) TL;DR - No one is going to sit here and read 65 paragraphs of waffle - Keep it short and to the point. –Davey2010Talk 18:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Unfortunately, since I suspect my resubmitting plan above will be declined, and because my voice on this media has been unjustly threatened by the very administrators involved, and yet further considering the well documented rush to bury the DR and unDR pages in archives, I am forced to continue my case in detail, here and now. I apologize for the length of this document, and any unavoidable information redundancies.

DavidHarrell (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC) DavidHarrell (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not going anywhere. Jcb (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It is 'the records' in this case that are not going anywhere. Notice that this prejudicial comment is not going to disappear from the record, regardless of how many administrators currently wish to pretend it does not exist.

On 31 December 2017 ... Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) wrote: “Finally, your work is a useless montage. While the images are beautiful, your editorial comments about "the gods" make it impossible for it to be used on Commons or almost anywhere else. One of the many points of agreement among Christians, Jews, and Muslims is that there is one God and your assertion that "gods" have created this beauty is offensive. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)” ---end quote---

You archived my notice within minutes of my posting it. Clearly you did not even bother to read my comment, I suggest you do so.

Moreover, you pointedly did not address the more serious issue of religious persecution in this case. It will be addressed in full, either on this forum and/or many others.

I suspect this notice will be hustled in archives as well. Gentlemen these instant cover-up reactions do not enhance your position. The subject named below is not going away without resolution.

Notice of Two: (1) Administrative collaboration to delete a properly submitted file on the publicly declared unlawful grounds of administrative religious prejudice. (2) Gross administrative incompetence.

DavidHarrell (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC) DavidHarrell (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I have blocked DavidHarrell for a month. Nothing about this is necessary or productive. Regarding the claim of religious persecution, we would not want such an image if it referenced a singular God. "See more Saturn as the [insert deity(s) here] paint(s)." Fill in the blank however you want, this content will be contrary to someone's beliefs. More importantly, this type of in-image caption is not something we want. Overall the file simply doesn't meet our project scope. Guanaco (talk) 20:49, 8 January 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.

The license for these 4 images

Can anyone find the license for these 3 screencaps? Have a good day.

The uploader is trusted so the license should be somewhere. If it was Youtube, it would be cc by 3.0. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

http://pocketwatchgames.com/presskit/sheet.php?p=Tooth%20and%20Tail - "License: All images in this press kit are licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 creativecommons.org." (near the bottom of the page) -- Begoon 06:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Heh - I missed it the first time that I looked too, it's not very prominent - but I checked again because, like you, I was pretty sure that Anarchyte would not have claimed that license without evidence. Cheers. -- Begoon 09:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jarekt (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

trying to upload a picture

I am trying to upload a picture in the page of Fernando Gómez-Bezares, the picture is mine and I have his permission to upload it but when I try to do it it says that in is not legitimate and tha I should talk with the administrator.

Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alumno132018 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alumno132018: Please try uploading directly here, rather than trying a "Cross-wiki upload from es.wikipedia.org".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Flag of Serbia.svg

Thanks. -- Begoon 00:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Done by Ankry. Thank you very much for doing that so quickly - we shall have another satisfied customer. -- Begoon 01:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ankry (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Long-term block of Khanhlong566

Khanhlong566 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user may misunderstand many aspect of wiki (specifically, nominations for deletion), but this diff is certainly not of a vandal, and uploads are also good.

Please, re-block this guy with a decent substantiation and for a reasonable term. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Please also assess this “interesting” statement of the blocking sysop. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I've been asked to look at this - the block is fine, the log entry as vandalism is not unreasonable, but a more descriptive block "Disruptive editing - filing DRs with no rationales" would be more helpful for other admins reviewing the situation in future. Nick (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Nick, thanks for your review. I agree, I should've give more specifics and I surely would if I had more time at that moment. I always welcome a constructive exchange of views but not arrogant remarks [2] from a user that I and fellow admins on ru.wiki used to block for their well-known abusive conduct. The user was so in a hurry with their complaints and warnings that there was not even an attempt to figure out what the exact block duration was [3], as well as no explanation offered, whether one can find constructive the nomination of a random user page for deletion [4]. That's why I treat their warnings as a kind of harassment. Sealle (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Please, take a ru.wikipedia member’s innuendo with a grain of salt. I was a fully naturalised member of English Wikipedia for many years with well-known positive contributions and quit only due to my own disappointment about their morbid bureaucracy. My so named “well-known conduct [in ru.wikipedia]” largely consisted of the same thing – reporting on various abuses and incompetence by privileged users (much more rampant in ru.wikipedia than in a median large Wikimedia project). Note that reporting on abuses in English Wikipedia usually did not meet with retaliatory eloquences attempted to tarnish reputation. Would the community of Commons accept such a conduct as appropriate? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Last two comments seem to be unrelated to the initial request. File reviewed, User:Nick found no reason to any action. So
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ankry (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Page Update keeps reverting back to old version

Several times I've updated the Prescott Valley, AZ Government Wiki Page, so it is completely updated (mostly whole thing has been changed). It looks updated, then next time I look, it's reverted back to an old version (but does show the updated pics). I've done this two or three times now, re-editing all the sections, and it just won't keep the updates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hldahms (talk • contribs) 18:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Hldahms: you might want to go to en:WP:AN instead. Artix Kreiger 2 (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Not a Commons issue, not an Admin issue, but I hope no one will mind if I answer the question where it was asked. @Hldahms: See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prescott_Valley,_Arizona&action=history for the history of edits on that article. en:User:Onel5969 reverted you, with a rather clear explanation: "Rev commentary, non-notable folks." If you feel that's wrong, either take it up on the article's talk page or the user's. - Jmabel ! talk 19:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Block needed for IP sock

Please hardblock the /64 address range here (2600:8807:201:AC00::/64). This is a sock from en.wiki and checkuser will get results but the IP is blanking my talk page and needs blocked. I can email any checkuser with account info. Please see my talk page and user page and block those accounts. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

See this.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

These 4 images

Dear Admins or trusted users,

Are these 4 images secure enough to mark? The uploader asks whether the images can be licensed as CC BY SA 4.0 (his question links to this license version)and kinyeti--whom I assume is the copyright owner says I license them as CC BY SA--with no version number.

I don't know the reddit website well. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Is a CC BY SA permission statement acceptable for Commons on the source? Does any Admin know? The uploader made a good faith attempt to get permission. But the license version number is not stated. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe {{Cc-by-sa-all}}? Anyway I think COM:VPC is the proper place for this question. -- Geagea (talk) 03:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is our record company not showing up on Wikimedia site? Walking Tall Records was established in 1979-1980 and is still operating

Walking Tall Records Co 1544 South Byrne Road, Suite D Toledo, Ohio 43614 Phone: 419 407 5951

To: Wikimedia we have been in business since 1979 and released our very first 45rpm record in 1980 under our Walking Tall Records Label. We are still operating and still recording and producing music. We are listed on ASCAP and BMI with publishing etc and nearly all sites. Why our company is listed as non existent is beyond us!! Please re-check your records and we are sure you will see us somewhere on the internet and still writing, arranging and producing music. Please reply in response, Thank You J.Lloyd Walking Tall Records [email protected] [email protected] http://www.walkingtallrecords.com/wtr http://www.walkingtallrecords.com http://www,goldstandard.ltd — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2602:306:83C8:D060:64E0:636B:487B:EF5F (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

This is wiki commons, a photo repository used by all the language wikis. You should ask here: [5]. PumpkinSky talk 03:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Multiple files uploaded from a book, claiming free to reuse

Can someone more familiar with Commons and image copyrights take a look at images uploaded today by user:Sinsl727. These all appear to be uploaded from scanned images of a book; and the licensing claims the author made the images free for reuse. But, I can't locate anything confirming that release. I suspect an OTRS confirmation is needed for all of these, but was unsure how to tag the images and/or how to notify the uploader of links to the required process. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Barek: I created Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sinsl727.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the assist! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Barek: You're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

File:RUSS.jpg

Not sure if this is a copyvio but given the description and the fact that it was added to the English Russ (rapper) article by an account named "Ihateruss" [6], admins may want to keep an eye on the account that uploaded the photo here. --NeilN (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Uploader blocked & image nuked. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Khanhlong566 indefblocked

Don’t I see a nightmare? Based on the incompetent accusation of vandalism and one instance of unattributed reuse of a degraded picture of a cactus? Blocked, unlike dozens Gerramas roaming in the wild? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
P.S. my report was based on this item solely. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The user is not indefinitely blocked. I would suspect @Jdx: has accidentally left a warning on the wrong user page (or has forgotten to indefinitely block the user after leaving the block notice, but I would find that unlikely). I would remind Incnis Mrsi to remain mellow and to first ascertain the exact circumstances of an issue before making comment about the judgement of sysops here. There could be an issue, but there probably isn't. Jdx has a history of competency and good judgement here, so it would be wise to give them the chance to explain the situation before rushing in. Nick (talk) 10:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nick: My bad, I forgot to re-block him indefinitely. I am pretty sure this is another sock puppet of Dienthoaiquangcao82. @Incnis Mrsi: For me these are pure vandalisms: Special:Diff/278567408 and Special:Diff/276698876. Even assuming that the nominations of photos are honest mistakes, I cannot find any explanation for these two (actually three) nominations. Anyway, if an admin thinks I am too harsh, fell free to soften or lift the block – I am not going to fight for it. --jdx Re: 12:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jdx: it could easily be honest mistakes from a user pretending to be a Thai speaker, especially surfing using some inconvenient (touch-pad or so) device. DHTML-AJAX widgets make filing requests very easy, that is ungood when unconfirmed people or even IPs are possible users. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: Well, he is experienced enough to remove a valid comment/warning from his talk page: Special:Diff/278566898. --jdx Re: 13:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, identifying the account in question with e.g. Special:Contribs/Vuongtrang26011995 looks plausible enough, but again, don’t issue the “vandalism” reason for things that are not, please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

An error in QuickDelete script?

A few minutes ago I nominated a file for deletion using the script and this happened – the script inserted February instead of January. --jdx Re: 21:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Perhelion, could you take a look? Maybe related to [7]? --Thibaut120094 (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done @Thibaut120094 and Jdx: Yes, this mistake was only 13min live. Sorry for that. There seems no other request affected. -- User: Perhelion 20:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Santa barbara county neighborhood affected mudslides - 09 Jan 2018.jpg

Can an Admin mark this PD image? I am transcluded from marking it. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: You are prevented from editing it because it is on the English WikiNews Main Page.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh I see Jeff G! No one explained to me what "transcluded" or transclusion meant before. I suppose that once it is not on the main board of English wikipedia someone can mark it. I could tell it is an important image. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done. I reviewed the license. Taivo (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks. @Leoboudv: WikiNews is not Wikipedia.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Protected copyvio file

File:Sanchi oil tanker burning.png is an obvious copyvio—a YouTube channel with fewer than 2000 subscribers is not going to be commissioning helicopter photography 150 miles off the Chinese coast at any time, let alone of military and coastguard activities during an extremely sensitive major incident, and while it's theoretically possible that whichever TV news footage the uploader of the YouTube video swiped it from was something released under a free licence (such as footage taken by the US military), if that's the case the attribution needs to be given. However, the image is currently protected so I can't either tag it as a copyvio or nominate it on Commons:Deletion requests. Can someone with more bits than me do whatever's appropriate here? — iridescent 16:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I concur with this assessment. The YouTube channel appears to be one of those news regurgitator channels that just shows images with text and music, and often with a text-to-speech voice reading the text (though apparently not in this case). Of course, because the image has been modified and cropped, I can't say what the original source is since Google Image Search and TinEye don't help. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done I deleted the file. It was a copyvio of a photograph by Reuters. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Massive file deletions on ku.wikipedia

Hello, can somebody justify me the deleting of all these images (This category had before deletion more than 70 or 80 files and now 5 files). Most of them were Commons images translated into Kurdish (for example: [8], [9](en)/[10](ku), [11](en)/ [12] (ku), ...), and I had even checked the licenses.
Can you also shown me the discussion page for the removal of these images? I also left a message here. Ping: @Jcb: . Thanks--Ghybu (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Posted at multiple places. Being handled at my user talk page. Jcb (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Jessica Clark Cohen.jpg copvio?

The file is declared "own work", but can be found at this URL with a copyright statement: http://wvw.nacion.com/ancora/2008/agosto/24/ancora1668392.html

--Jkbw (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. I deleted the image as copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Move ratelimit

I just realised I have been getting move rate limit errors. Putting in a work around (which I've just done) might get me into hot water as the failed moves are probably getting logged. What is my personal rate limit on page moves, and can I get it increased without being an administrator? It's the sort of thing that is occasionally relevant for housekeeping of mass uploads. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe its 8 moves a minute. Correct me if I am wrong. Artix Kreiger (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I have put in a 'fake' lag, to force the rate under this limit. If it's possible to get a ratelimit increase on my account, I'd appreciate it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Fæ: , you might want to ask a developer for that. According to this, its 8 per 60 seconds. Artix Kreiger (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. The roles are likely to be custom per project, so bot rights may be more flexible. I'll let the current move job carry on as they are, but it may be worth raising a ticket for Faebot at some point. @Krd: if this was for Faebot and a specific type of move/housekeeping, could move ratelimits be tweaked in detail by a 'crat or is there some other way we go about speeding up large numbers of moves so they take minutes rather than days? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I see no other way than creating a new user group or raising the limit for bots. Both had to be done via a phabricator ticket after local consensus has been achieved.
Can you give some examples what this is required for? I don't see any recent bulk moved from both of your accounts. --Krd 17:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
(EC)Users without noratelimit (currently bot, 'crat, stew, admin, translationadmin, accountcreator has noratelimit on Commons) are subject to 8/60 ratelimit. default and (Commons specific settings are upload only). — regards, Revi 17:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) There is a noratelimit in Special:ListGroupRights, available to account creators (only stewards can grant this), bots, b'crats, stewards, sysops, and translation admins. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
The current moves were requested on the VP and are still happening diff. They can happen in slowtime, but if in the future I need to tidy up, say, a 10,000+ batch upload in non-controversial moves, it makes sense for Faebot to be able to whizz through it. I could raise a bot amendment at that time.
If this sort of stuff should wait until the time I have sysop rights, then so be it, it's not the only sysop related project I've put on the indefinite back burner. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Since you have a bot account with botflag, I believe (if you do it with your bot) it should be fine. — regards, Revi 17:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I think I have looked the wrong way. Bots already have noratelimit, and I have now added account_creator to you main account, which gives you noratelimit, too. Please take care. --Krd 17:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, after having read Revi's comment I may have unintentionally been right in the first place. If it doesn't work, we have to go the long way. --Krd 17:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! It's a more complex question than I expected. I just ran 100 moves at a fast rate (it's working) and now swapped to using Faebot to finish this job, as this does work as -revi pointed out with the benefit of the bot flag making the housekeeping less visible for most users. I'll be cautious to stick to non-controversial changes, such as might come up on my own upload projects or similar requested moves. If the rights changes to my main account are causing you doubts, I will not be worried if you revert them, so long as Faebot can carry on with these things. --Fæ (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Sheila Y. Oliver.jpg

Can someone check the authenticity of the copyright status? My copyright tag was denied. The content is based from a youtube channel and it was said to be real but I doubt it. On the NJTV's terms of service link, I am not convinced of free content, at least for the youtube channel. Artix Kreiger (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Hello, this image is linked to my DR discussion below because a second separate reviewer marked and passed a second image from this source in 2017. According to this someone named Majora also verified the license but I don't know if this occured on wikipedia or wikicommons. I suspect now it was wikipedia. Thanks, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio

hi! some one can see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Travisdanny because : if the subject are travis danny i can not to be the photographer. bye --Chatsam (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Chatsam: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Travisdanny.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done. Deleted on the same day. Taivo (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Book covers allowed?

Not sure if File:Nippoldt berlin va d 3d 04680 1710251524 id 1132897.png is allowed and valid for the given license. Thanks for checking! --Joschi71 (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The name of the user-account and its one edit at :de suggest that he/she might represent the editor de:Taschen (Verlag). Anyway, we should ask for a permission to OTRS. --Túrelio (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done. This is not a simple book cover and needs OTRS-permission. Jeff tagged the file as missing permission – this was a right decision. Taivo (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thank you. I'm sorry for not mentioning what I did here.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This DR

I think only an Admin can resolve whether File:Vincent Prieto.jpg which I mentioned can be saved OR not because someone named Majora verified the license was CC BY on youtube. I suspect now Majora was on wikipedia. which would mean this image has to be deleted. This DR is a headache when people change youtube licenses. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Majora: FYI.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank You Jeff. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I responded to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sheila Y. Oliver.jpg and my response there is the same as for File:Vincent Prieto.jpg. I reviewed both of them when they were hosted on enwiki. They both were Creative Commons at the time. I would have never marked them as anything else if they weren't. This is no different from when a Flickr user changes their CC license back to ARR. Creative Commons is irrevocable. Whether or not it was a mistake on their part I don't know but it was Creative Commons when I reviewed it. --Majora (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Photos of Alberta on free licence?

Hello, I need a review of this by some administrator from Canada: I read this statement:

In accordance with The City of Calgary's policy on Access to Municipal Information, records more than twenty-five years old are available for public use unless otherwise restricted. Records which are less than twenty-five years old are available for public use unless otherwise restricted by legislation. Please see the City of Calgary Archives Policies and Procedures Manual for further infomation regarding access to records.

Yet I still don't understand whether these photos are completely free or are only free for non - commercial use or similar. Can any Canadian help to clarify? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Blackcat: Regardless of the above (which does not specify derivative works or commercial use), Canada's laws still apply, please see COM:CRT#Canada.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Perfect, @Jeff G.: , thanks. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@Blackcat: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion closure

Came here as suggested to me at en.wiki. I'd like a close on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arcturus (optical).png, which is a little over 5 weeks old and not commented on now for a week. Tom.Reding (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: All are welcome to use a member of Category:Polling templates when expressing their opinions at that DR, as I did.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Jeff G.; done. Tom.Reding (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: You're welcome. I'm glad to see that your use of {{U}} notified me.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done. I closed the DR as kept. Taivo (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello,
I am sorry, I have not found the template or specific page to ask for the renaming of a gallery. When looking at this history, it seems that there was an error in the last moves: now the title of the gallery is using two languages at the same time. Could you rename it?
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Pleclown (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Revert poor quality replacement image

The user ANON711 (talk · contribs) uploaded a new version of this image, but it isn't the same image that the image owner gave Wikimedia OTRS permission to use. And the image is pretty poor quality. I'm unable to roll back the change. Can an admin please handle this? Thanks -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 07:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. I simply deleted the last version as copyright violation. Per EXIF, author was Mark E. Mitchell, but uploader was ANON711. OTRS-permission is needed to restore the last version. Taivo (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
No FOP for sculptures in the US anyway; the OTRS ticket is only valid for the original image.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much! -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 09:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is our record company not showing up on Wikimedia site? Walking Tall Records was established in 1979-1980 and is still operating

Our recording and production company was established years ago and still it is not being listed on Wikimedia????? Walking Tall Records Co was and is still operating and recording music as I write.. an account was set up quite some time ago and still we are not listed on Wikimedia etc.???? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2602:306:83C8:D060:64E0:636B:487B:EF5F (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Some warnings about the Requested Articles process: 1.) the entries there are not ordered by time but by subject area, and a new entry there will have just as good a chance of being picked and written about as a very, very old one, which means it is not a first come/ first serve basis, 2.) our list of requested articles contains tens of thousands of entries, many of which may never be written because our article topics are chosen by our readers based on their own interests, and 3.) adding your name to this list is no guarantee that anyone will necessarily ever attempt to create the article on you. However, it is one way you can at least put the idea out there for others to consider.

attention with spiteful deletion-nominations of images from Ukraine

Please take note that currently a conflict between users at uk.wikipedia has spilled over to Commons, as we were notified by :uk colleague Brunei a few days ago at COM:AN/U. As a result many images showing buildings/streets/landscape from Ukraine have been and are furthermore being nominated for deletion by User:Yuriy Urban, who seems to be in conflict with User:Dgho. As a few of this nominations were possibly justified, at first I haven't taken action against the nominator, but only commented as the DR discussion, when there was clearly no copyright violated. In addition, Jcb has reverted a number of speedy-nominations of this user, as they are out-of-process with FoP-issues.
However, in a comment on my talkpage User:Yuriy Urban has directly threatened :uk-admin User:Brunei (if Google translates correctly) and has also nominated a larger number of images by User:Brunei[13], most or all of which clearly have no copyright problem, such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bus station Ukrainka 2015.JPG. Therefore, a strong warning or a block of User:Yuriy Urban might now be due. --Túrelio (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, user admitted freely an attempt of moral pressure against me and Dgho. Please, take action.--Brunei (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Everything we need here but revenge RfD. At a certain point I don't even wonder whether they are justified or less, the simple fact that they ground on revenge makes me want to terminate the user that uses our procedures as a means to fight their personal war against another user. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Two copyvios

Both have now been listed as fair use on en.wiki.

Sweet68camaro (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. But in the future, please nominate such copyvios for deletion using "Nominate for deletion" link on toolbar. Taivo (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Help desk help

Could I ask someone else to look in at Commons:Help_desk#Why these files should be changed from Category:Roads in Tainan City to "Category:Roads in China"?? My patience has been exhausted. From what I can tell there is no current issue this person wants solved, but he keeps pinging me. Perhaps I'm missing something, perhaps someone else can help him. - Jmabel ! talk 18:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I don't think an administrative action has to be taken, if the user ping you again just say (without ping) "Please don't ping me any more regarding this topic, as I can not do anything". No more no less, as far I can see at each of your ping they answer with another ping... Joostik is free to write in his talk page that the entire China country is inside Washington D.C. if he want. No importance until an edit war. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
In which case, "All your base are belong to us." :)   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
So lucky for us that there are no roads in the South China Sea :-) --Rudolph Buch (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Borrado de imagen

He intentado subir una imagen que consta exclusivamente de líneas y formas geométricas. Ante esto, suelo usar una plantilla para eso (PD-shape). La imagen es esta de aquí. Anteriormente subí un montón de este tipo, como por ejemplo, esta de aquí, esta, esta, esta o esta de acá, entonces no veo problema con subir la primera, como dije anteriormente, solo consta de líneas o formas geométricas al igual que otras subidas. Solicito me ayuden a subir esta imagen a commons. Elías (talk) 11:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Elías: Hay muchos imágenes allí en Google. ¿Que exacto imagen quiere, uno de sus cuatro imágenes borrados recientes o un otro?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Elías: There are many images there on Google. What exact image do you want, one of the four of yours recently deleted or another?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Lo que deseo realmente es que me ayuden a subir esta imagen de aquí (un escudo) a wikicommons ya que la han borrado en otras ocasiones. Esta imagen solo consta de líneas y figuras geométricas. Elías (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Is the large shield logo at https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=co.edu.cuc.movil above or below COM:TOO in Colombia? I don't know.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

My editions today

Hi! I ask to delete my today editions (renames). Thank you! Rakás (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

File:From left, War Memorial, 1938 teaching building and 1937 residence, from NW corner of grounds (EHP, 2015).jpg

This file has been tagged as "Missing evidence of permission" despite the fact that the source provided does indeed contain a CC-BY notice (lower right on the background page -- close the photo box to make it easier to see) as I stated as the licensing of the file. I have attempted unsuccessfully to contact the user who placed the tag, so I am asking here if someone would please check the source and remove the tag. I have uploaded hundreds of photos from the Queensland Heritage Register which uses CC-BY-4.0 on their text and photos (other than those identified as being the material of 3rd parties). Kerry Raymond (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

For a start, Queensland is not in New Zealand (not last time I checked anyways)...JarrahTree (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

DR created, so detail discussion and links to any evidence should happen there for the record. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
All resolved - thanks Fae JarrahTree (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Admin help needed. Trophies are not works of art, they are not architectural or artistic works

User Ytoyoda here:[14] and here:[15] is trying to delete pictures of trophies because of Freedom of panorama. This particular law protects architectural or artistic work, photographed from a public space in Greece. This law has absolutely nothing to do with photographs of trophies, it is completely irrelevant on that matter. Trophies are not works of art. Paintings and sculptures are works of art. See: A work of art in the visual arts is a physical two- or three- dimensional object that is professionally determined or otherwise considered to fulfill a primarily independent aesthetic function. A singular art object is often seen in the context of a larger art movement or artistic era, such as: a genre, aesthetic convention, culture, or regional-national distinction. It can also be seen as an item within an artist's "body of work" (...). This is crystal clear. The aforementioned "Freedom of panorama" law protects works of art and specifically architectural or artistic works. Trophies won by a sports club have no artistic meaning whatsoever, they are not works of art. There are thousands of photos of trophies won by sports clubs in wikipedia, and nobody ever suggested that they are works of art.

These are the photos Ytoyoda is trying to delete: [16], [17], [18]. These trophies are by no means architectural or artistic works who fulfill a primarily independent aesthetic function or bear any artistic meaning whatsoever. These are trophies, not works of art, there are thousands of pictures of trophies in wikimedia commons. They are not copyrighted. I strongly believe that wikimedia administrators are the ones qualified to clarify this situation.

P.S. 1: I'd like to give you an example: Argentina has no Freedom of panorama for scultures or works of art. This picture: [19] is free and in the public domain because the copyright of this photograph, registered in Argentina, has expired. According to what Ytoyoda suggests, the Intercontinental Cup trophy that Funes is holding in his hands is a work of art, and its creator is an artist, so this picture is copyrighted and should be deleted. Excuse me, but this is preposterous. And rest assured, there are thousands of photos like this in wikimedia commons. If Ytoyoda is right, and trophies are considered sculptures, architectural or artistic works then we have to delete a massive amount of photos. I disagree 100% with Ytoyoda and it is my firm conviction that the photos I uploaded should not be deleted. I defer to the administrators. Thank you. Gtrbolivar (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I’m seriously confused why this is an admin board issue. Why can’t all of this be addressed in the deletion discussions? This seems like an inappropriate forum. Ytoyoda (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I closed the first DR as deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

File:New Orleans Upper Central Business District cropped with boundary.jpg and File:New Orleans Lower Central Business District with increases.jpg

Please delete the first revision of each file, as those are copyright violations (non-free Google Maps content). —LX (talk, contribs) 07:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Taivo (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Maximale Dateigröße

Beim serverseitigen Hochladen ist die Dateigröße auf etwa $sside_upload_GiB begrenzt.

Kann Bitte jemand diesen Fehler im ersten Absatz beheben? --Reneman (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Im Satz davor ist noch ein roter Link enthalten, der ebenfalls korrigiert werden kann... --Reneman (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Could a translation administrator, please, mark the latest change in Commons:Maximum file size for translation? — Speravir – 01:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Self revert. — Speravir – 02:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Da liegt noch mehr im Argen, Reneman. Theoretisch solltest Du auch selbst mithelfen können, die Übersetzung zu aktualisieren (theoretisch, weil ich nicht weiß, wie gut es um Dein Englisch steht). — Speravir – 01:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Danke für die Antwort, aber "Änderungen an der Übersetzungsvorlage, respektive der Ausgangssprache können auf Commons:Maximum file size durchgeführt und müssen von einem Übersetzungsadministrator bestätigt werden." ich bin mir nicht bewusst, dass ich diese Anforderung erfülle ;) --Reneman (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done Danke. --Reneman (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Setting up an abusefilter - help wanted

Hi fellow admins!

Looks like TBL is not doing their job correctly or I did something wrong - it's allowing the strings that are set to disallow. I'm inclined to set an abusefilter at this stage, but given I'm no expert in Regex, I think I'll probably mangle stuff rather than doing it correctly. Can any of you set an abusefilter for me, with following settings:

  • Users with less than 100 contribs (or any other community standard config for 'newbies', as you see fit.)
  • User is trying to insert the strings in User:레비/KS#TBL. (NOTE: Ordinary good-faith users are extremely unlikely to trigger these strings, except 출장 which is "Business trip". However this spam pattern's abusiveness outweighs the possible rate of false positive, imo.)
  • User is not removing it.

I think we can do logging only for few catches or victims then we can safely deny matching contributions. Goodnight! — regards, Revi 19:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Related: COM:AN/B#Assistance wanted - Korean spam — regards, Revi 19:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@-revi: Done: Special:AbuseFilter/195. Edit count 100 is probably too high, although as an expert in this area you should estimate it better than me. For testing regular expressions I suggest http://regexr.com. BTW, I'm not sure what "insert" means in your description. Does it mean "a user tries to add given string to a page" or "a user tries to upload a file with given string in its name"? --jdx Re: 21:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Or we can simply do "!contains_any(user_groups, "autoconfirmed")" (and possibly confirmed too?) instead of 100 edits. Added_lines is what I meant. :D Thanks Jdx! — regards, Revi 12:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
revi, shouldn't the filter be hidden? --Achim (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Not sure, User:레비/KS is already publicly visible, but if we want to hide the detailed strings so they are harder to bypass, sure, I think we can hide them. — regards, Revi 16:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Any Austrian admin?

Hello, don't know whether any of you is aware of this matter, but there is an issue in RfD regarding some postal stamps issued by the Austrian government when the postal service was still public (pre-1996). The uploader states that pre-1996 stamps are government acts thus PD but it seems that no one that took part to that discussion knows well the Austrian law so some national from that country would be required. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter? Storkk (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
@Storkk: Not sure. (Bin im österr. Urheberrecht nicht sonderlich bewandert :/, habe keine Rechtsprechung zu gefunden (nur das was aber auch nicht weiterhilft) und wie man die Gesetze dort auslegt bin ich mir nicht sicher, man müsste eine ganze Menge prüfen um die Frage abschließend beurteilen zu können.) --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

AdminConvention 2018 (german language)

Dieses Jahr findet die AdminConvention, das deutschsprachige Treffen für Themen rund um die Administration von Wikimedia-Projekten, vom 23. - 25. März in Hornberg im Schwarzwald statt. Die Anmeldung ist ab sofort geöffnet, wer Themenwünsche hat oder erfüllen will, Vortrags- oder oder Workshopangebote machen möchte oder bei Organisation und Ablauf helfen möchte, trage sich bitte auf den entsprechenden Seiten ein. --Seewolf (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

History merges

Van was replaced with content for the city in Turkey, now at Van, Turkey. I moved the content to Van, Turkey as the city isn't the primary topic, would it be possible to history merge the content at Van from last April so that it is at Van, Turkey instead.

Also could the content at Category:Carlisle (deleted in November 2012) also be restored please as it was originally at that location, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done, except the later two deleted versions of Category:Carlisle redirecting to Category:Carlisle, Cumbria.--Jusjih (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Panoramio permanently discontinued

Dear Guanaco, Jcb, Jarekt, Túrelio, Jameslwoodward, Lymantria, Zhuyifei1999 and other Admins,

FYI, Panoramio has now been discontinued. If it wasn't for Internet Archive, I could not mark this image: File:Ömerli Baraji.jpg --Leoboudv (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

sadly, it ha to be today. Artix Kreiger (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Uploads by Ukrainkaworld23

Not only Ukrainkaworld23 is blocked as a sockpuppet, the user (or sockpuppeteer?) left behind his/her uploads. They need to be re-evaluated as they were uploaded as "own work". Also, what about File:Basilio Kaczurak 1940.jpg, which I re-tagged as PD-Ukraine? Meanwhile, what about Ukrainkaworld, which looks similar to that user name and Ukrainkaworld2? George Ho (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@George Ho: You are welcome to file a DR and an RFCU.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Jeff. However, "Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases." I am unsure how difficult this case is. Can anyone explain why? Those accounts must have uploaded the same content, most of which eventually got deleted. Meanwhile, I'll file DR soon if it's necessary. George Ho (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Hmm... I'm also unsure about what to think about this edit. George Ho (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Revive me

Hi there ! Since unapproved of this request, I became dull here on commons. I think of New Year 2018 and again came here to refresh me and do something positively however my past says bad. I'm sorry for my bad if community has no any further objection, i would like to continue my good works here with good & full of positive energy. As of now, I'm active at reverting vandals, moving pages, deletion requests etc. I've so far contributed 1000+ in this new year 1st month. So that i am humbly requesting commons-median to revive me i.e. give me back the access of tools that i previously had which will be very beneficial to me. It will not only save my time but also gonna save community time. Please also note this ! Thank you for your all kind consideration !! Regards, — TBhagat (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The user apparently knows how to control a puppet. But he can’t learn how revert vandalism in one edit. A school is waiting for such guys, not flags on Commons! Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
+1: Thanks Incnis for the point out, Is it okay? For above concerns, I want to say is that I've done that twice for the undo revision auto-summary. In that time if I had the one edit revert tool then it will revert all top consecutive edits made by last editor. I guess, revert vandalism is not the controversial one. Regards, — TBhagat (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Anyone without rollback right can easily revert multiple edits using Navigation popups. BTW. I can't see nothing wrong in using "undo" link multiple times to revert multiple edits. Although Navigation popups is just much more convenient. --jdx Re: 18:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Since this is not an administrative issue,I have referred your request to Commons talk:WikiProject Heraldry. De728631 (talk) 08:54, 31 January 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.

Massively used coat of arms that is wrong

The File:Coat of Arms of L'Aquila, Italy.svg is being used by over 300 articles, however it is wrong. The coat of arms is described as "D'argento all'aquila dal volo abbassato di nero, coronata, rostrata, linguata e armata d'oro; accostata dalla scritta P.H.S. in capo, e ai fianchi IMMOTA MANET", with "dal volo abbassato" being the error as this means wingtips down. See also the city's webpage for confirmation. I could fix it if it were a png file, but svg I do not use how to change. Therefore I would like to ask another editor to swap out the current eagle and insert one with the wingtips down. Thanks, Noclador (talk) 19:54, 30 January 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.

http:// bit.ly/ 1b3VS7i

I was about to upload photos from here.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary/albums/72157638739336254

However, there is an url shortener above that links to ways to purchase the picture from the British Library. Is there a way to whitelist it from the blacklist? I will go after the uploads to covert it to the proper form.

Thanks.

Artix Kreiger (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to be specific, on the flickr photos, they are public domain and I would be uploading them. However, in the description, The phrase "Order a higher quality version from here." links it to the bit.ly. This prevents me from uploading. Thus I am requesting it be an excemption. Artix Kreiger (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
It's better to expand the shortcut, remove the sentence about retail sales, or stub it out as you did in this thread. --Fæ (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I can't. Flickr only allows the author to edit the description. Thus, im stuck with it, that is unless Magnus Manske changes flickr2commons to allow editing of descriptions. 14:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

How can I nominate many pictures for deletion simultaneously (mass deletion)? - FOP question

  1. Hello, I'd like to know how I can nominate a number of pictures for deletion simultaneously like here for example: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Galatasaray Museum. Is there a tool? What exactly is the procedure?
  2. According to this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gtrbolivar the vast majority of the photographs in Fenerbahce Museum Category here: Category:Fenerbahçe Museum as well as these photos here: File:2016–17 EuroLeague Cup 2.jpg, File:2016–17 Basketbol Süper Ligi Cup.jpg, File:2016–17 Turkish Basketball President's Cup.jpg are blatant copyright infringements. Turkey has freedom of panorama "only for public streets, avenues or squares". All these trophies are sculptures and works of art, they are copyrighted, they are not on a public street, avenue or square and it's clear that they must be deleted. I'd like the opinion of an administrator with some knowledge on this matter. Thank you. Gtrbolivar (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Question 1: Help:VisualFileChange.js --GRuban (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@GRuban: I really appreciate it. Thank you. Gtrbolivar (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Question 2: I would agree with your assessment, but without the certainty needed for a speedy deletion. You should nominate them using VisualFileChange. Guanaco (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Guanaco: I'd like to thank you for your help and your advice. I nominated the pictures for deletion here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Fenerbahçe Museum, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Fenerbahçe SK. I would like to ask you -if you have the time- to take a look at the discussion here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gtrbolivar and give me an assessment, a third opinion. Thanks again. Gtrbolivar (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The wrong screenshot

Hi, i was uploading a picture (screenshot) from Youtube, and i upload the wrong one which isnt in the video. how can i fix it, should i upload a new version over it or you have to delet it, thanks.--Mojackjutaily (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mojackjutaily: I deleted the file for you. Having said that you are not allowed to upload screenshots of youtube-Videos unless YOU are the person who made the video. Please consider our rules! Regards, --Emha (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Some YouTube videos may have been released under a free license by their author though. For instructions how to find out about the licence at YouTube, please see COM:WHERE. De728631 (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Emha: What are you talikng about, we have template, Category and a guide page for such files, so how it is not allowed?--Mojackjutaily (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mojackjutaily: , De728631: you both are right. If the licence is suitable for is, it's allowed. But I made the experience that many people upload screenshots without looking at the licence in YT. That's what I wanted to avoid. --Emha (talk) 10:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
oh yes, you are right. i have seen it alot in ar.wikipedia. thank you for consideration.--Mojackjutaily (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Your're welcome! --Emha (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for closure

This RFC is overdue for closure. Alsee (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Still needs a closure. Alsee (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Already closed. George Ho (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

DR closes

Was wondering is an administrator can take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:MSgt3.png. These discussions were closed by Fhsig13 who is the uploader of the files being discussed. These closes might have been simply a good-faith mistake, but typically (at least on English Wikipedia per en:WP:INVOLVED) editors (even admins) involved in a DR discussion should just unilaterally decide to close the discussion and interpret whether a consensus has been reached. I've reverted the two closes since they to be contrary to the spirit if not the actual wording of COM:DR#Closing discussions. i'm not sure, however, if reverting back to the pre-close version requires any other type of special cleanup. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly,
Yes, of course, these DRs shouldn't be closed by Fhsig13. I will look at the content sometime later. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Yann Both were closed again, as firstly, they were dormant for over a week each. No discussion had taken place on either, and a consensus had been more or less reached on the Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png matter. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Fhsig13 (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
User blocked for continued tampering with this DR closure after warnings. Jcb (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Yann and Jcb: Thank you for stepping in. On English Wikipedia there's something called en:WP:CIR which is occasionally cited when an editor is blocked for disruption such as this. From the unblock requests being made by Fhsig13, it looking as if this might be an issue here. I am also concerned about the editor's continued claims that these road sign file are PD without provide any basis for such claims as well as their feeling that creating derivatives of someone else's image means that the original copyright of the source image no longer needs to be taken into account. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The Book of Beauty

This is probably not the right place, but I didn't get much of a response last time I dropped at note at VPC. Regarding the images seen here. I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but it looks an awful lot like they every one need to be deleted. Book was published in 1933 but the author of the book died in 1980. The full text of the book is here, but there's nothing I can tell to explain why their putting the full text of it online from the Public Library of India archive. GMGtalk 15:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

If these were published with no photographer named, the license is correct, however the front of the book on the IA shows the photographer as Cecil Beaton. Beaton's estate continues to claim copyright (correctly) and his works are only public domain for his WW2 commission, where the photographs are expired Crown property. A DR would be justified. @Materialscientist: --Fæ (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done GMGtalk 18:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
They are not by Cecil Beaton or in the Book of Beauty, since the photo in the Book of Beauty are in PD, I used photos of the models in the Book of Beauty by another source, Bassano LTD. There is not recognized photographer for all photos by Bassano LTD and they are before 1948, therefore they are under the PD-UK-unknown licence (see other uploads in wikipedia tagged as Bassano LTD). --Elisa Rolle 20:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done for the below two photo. Please, GMG, let me know if you need any other check/fixing. --Elisa Rolle 20:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I believe the DR was closed too quickly. For example File:Lady_Eleanor_Furneaux_Smith.jpg has no credible source, or proof that it was published by Bassano Ltd and File:Mary Curzon, Lady Howe.jpg actually links to the wrong photograph on a genealogical website. It would be worth keeping the DR open until all the sources are fixed. --Fæ (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I... given how massively I screwed things up in my haste, am probably leaning toward particular DRs for particular images for particular reasons. GMGtalk 23:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Please avoid thinking of DRs as negative, it's okay for anyone to raise a DR if they have questions, and they provide a useful record to avoid the same questions arising in the future. --Fæ (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Close of deletion discussion requested

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ismael Ogando in Prenzlauer Berg.jpg has been open since 23 January, and is an obvious deletion, for being uploaded for self-promotion only, for having been uploaded by a since globally locked sock of a globally locked sock master, and for being a recreation under a slightly different name of twice deleted, and since SALTed, File:Ismael Ogando in Prenzlauerberg.jpg. Two other ideletion requests made the same day, for File:Ismael Ogando Rigaerkiez, Berlin 2013.jpg and File:Photo on 13.07.17 at 16.05 -4.jpg, two other images of the same person, have already been closed, and the images deleted, but not this one. TIA. Thomas.W talk 23:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

User reverting nomination for deletion tags- Course of action?

Baki.d is deleting the "nomination for deletion" tags from every single photo see: [20]. I warned him a couple of times not to do so ([21], [22], [23]), but he kept on. What is the appropriate course of action here? Thank you. Gtrbolivar (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I advocate blockage, the user is clearly NOTHERE.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Much appreciated Jeff. I'd like to ask you something, how did you revert all his edits automatically? Did you use a tool? Thanks again. Gtrbolivar (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Gtrbolivar: Thanks for asking. First, I edited a lot here and on enwiki, and paid attention to policies and guidelines. I also adjusted my opinions to fit the intricacies of international copyright law and how it informs decisions here. Then, I read Commons:Rollback and applied for the Rollback right at COM:RFR#Rollback. Then, I added Writ Keeper's MassRollback script to my configuration by adding what became "mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');" without quotes on its own line in User:Jeff G./common.js and tested it here. Then, I moved it to m:User:Jeff G./global.js. I don't use it much here, but it can be a real timesaver when defending a wiki from mass vandalism.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks Jeff, it seems really useful. A timesaver, no doubt. Gtrbolivar (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: By the way. could you give your assessment in these DRs here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gtrbolivar and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Fenerbahçe Museum? There is also an argument made by admin Túrelio here: [24], [25]. I'd like the input of an experienced editor like yourself. Thank you. Gtrbolivar (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Gtrbolivar: ✓ Done.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks again Jeff. Gtrbolivar (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I reverted a couple using two fingers (I always write with two fingers :) and see no need to block a newcomer for reverted edits that have not been -AFAIK- subject to edit war. Maybe we should give more time to real issues of vandalism. --E4024 (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think he was blocked, he just warned him and reverted his edits. You should refrain from removing delete tags, and the same goes for Baki.d. Gtrbolivar (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Con quién está parlando, Bolivar? --E4024 (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Editor, you're no Simón Bolívar.[26]   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete version of a file

Hello. Is it possible to delete the second version of File:Anna Zhelud - Анна Желудь (15906717156).jpg, uploaded today by a new user? He wrote "author unknown" and the picture is visible on other non-free websites, like this one, so I don't think it is free. Thank you. --Titlutin (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Ankry (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Gnash (talk · contribs)

Most of (all?) his uploads are files overwritten with a smaller version and the comment "Optimized file size.". For SVG files this means they are no longer passing as valid in the W3C validator. These all need to be reverted if Gnash uploaded the latest version. When the latest version is not from Gnash, they need to be manually checked. (list needed) I have also checked two JPEG pictures: File:Sony-PlayStation-3-4001B-wController-L.jpg and File:Gustave Le Gray - Brig upon the Water - Google Art Project.jpg. The files appear to be pixel-for-pixel identical. For another file I checked the EXIF information and that seems identical as well. The files seem to be different throughout, it's not just removing header information or something. Given what he does to SVG files however I suspect he used some sort of "optimizer" software that takes shortcuts to reduce the file size. So are these still valid JPEG files? Who knows. He also "optimized" files of other types.

There are two possibilities here. These files have been tarnished and (almost) every single one of his uploads needs to be reverted. The other possibility is that the modifications are absolutely harmless, the files are still perfectly valid and there is no downside in any way. In that case (almost) every single one of his uploads needs to be reverted, followed by Wikimedia installing the software he used on their servers and optimizing all files on Commons. (..I did not think so) So either way (almost) all of his uploads need to be reverted. - Alexis Jazz 05:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: lol I love how you’re acting like I’m some sort of mad man. Seems like a lot of people over here don’t know how jpeg files work. I already went over the argument with someone else some times ago : [27] tl:dr: those jpeg files are just optimized. I never vandalized a single file, period. I’ve also given the name of some of the software I used in that thread. If you want the whole list I’ll hapilly give it to you, just get off your high horse(In case you aren’t sure, all of my changes are lossless and reversible btw). Anyway much love 🤞 - Gnash (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
@Gnash: I've never said you are mad or have vandalized anything. I'm not asking for any sanctions regarding your account. I assume all your uploads are in good faith. However, in the upload comment there is no mention of how you processed any of the files. At least in case of the SVG files, they were tarnished. Not on purpose, but that's why we need to know what changed. I made a new file based on File:Mplayer.svg and when I was done found out it wasn't passing validation. Surprisingly not because I screwed up, but because you had "optimized" the mplayer icon. I wouldn't have had to fix my file if you hadn't "optimized" the icon in the first place. There may be other SVG files around now based on that tarnished version. They will all need to be fixed.
If your changes are absolutely and guaranteed harmless (compatible with all browsers/viewers etc.) it should not be you who uploads optimized versions of files, Wikimedia should configure the servers so every file gets optimized. I would suspect though they have already considered something like that. Chances are your uploads just cost money instead of saving it. Most image downloads are likely through articles on Wikipedia and those usually point to a scaled version of the image. So bandwidth savings are very little, but your uploads do take up some disk space and disk space costs money. I understand you are just trying to help, but this is not helping the project. If you believe Wikimedia has never considered this properly, consider making a proposal.
The money saved (if any at all) is worth absolutely nothing compared to the time wasted on the SVG files alone. Bandwidth costs a few cents per gigabyte, maybe less. Humans wasting hours on something.. That's a lot of terabytes.
A list of the software you used is welcome, even more welcome is a list of files you uploaded that weren't optimizations. - Alexis Jazz 08:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
What the.. You inserted an extra newline between the paragraphs of my first message. Don't do that. - Alexis Jazz 08:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Lol so that’s why you’re upset. This SVG file is still valid by the way little dude [28] and the non optimized version is still and will forever be up for download, I don’t know why you’re trying to put the blame on me.
Why were you bringing up jpegs in the first place and what are you even trying to achieve with this post? To get me blocked or put a hold on my uploading capabilities? Feels like you’re angry af and just want to piss someone else of - Gnash (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Gnash, your link is wrong - this is a link to validator.w3.org for the version which you uploaded. (5 Errors, 1 warning(s)) -- Begoon 08:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
@Gnash: Yes, it's valid because I reverted it back to the previous version. The good version was still available, but that didn't help me when I based my work on your "optimized" tarnished version. I had to fix the new file I made by hand. And if your "optimized" SVG files can't be trusted, I don't trust any of your other "optimized" files either.
I wasn't seeking to get you blocked or limit your uploading capabilities. I didn't bring this up here to get you punished in any way, but your attitude is going to get you blocked sooner or later. Calling me "little dude"? - Alexis Jazz 08:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Lol is that a threat 👎 And then what were you seeking for? Also yeah I incorrectly optimized this file whoops. Also that’s scary how you’re trying to turn everything I say agaisnt me, I call people “little dude” because I do, that’s my demeanor, don’t act like that offended you and I accidentally added a line in your message cause I’m on mobile don’t make it sound like it’s a big deal, ya feel me - Gnash (talk) 09:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Gnash: Certain demeanors are unacceptable here, and that includes using condescending epithets. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Gnash, could you explain what process do you follow for optimising the files? Platonides (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for AFD closing

Hi, two deletion requests I started hasn't closed by any admin even after 7 days. They are Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Codexinfotech and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jilan Basha. Please do the needful.--Hindust@niक्या करें? बातें! 16:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Only two? I've initiated at least 16 discussions that are part of the current backlog. Any particular reason why these two are so important that a special noticeboard thread is needed to give them priority over the rest of the backlog? —LX (talk, contribs) 18:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jilan Basha ✓ Done. --Achim (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Help with sockpuppeteer uploads

Hello all.

A football player has "tricked" a club by creating a fake wikipedia page, it's been all over the news this past days. Curious, I've searched the page, and the photo. The page have been created by a sock puppet of Daniel Kobe Ricks Jr, who has uploaded pictures with several of his accounts, many of them clear copyvios. Some of them are not so clear, and I've begin to nominate some of them. But the work is tedious, and I'm thinking of just nuking everything this person have uploaded. Any advice ?

Pleclown (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Done, with the help of Erdrokan and Popo le Chien. Merci à eux.

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


Compare Flickr file with a deleted file

Hi, I would like to know if any administrator could check if this Flickr file (https://www.flickr.com/photos/donostiakultura/35393509063/in/album-72157663754060043) is equal to File:Besarkada (liburua).jpg. This is because through OTRS a permission was sent for this Flickr file and after doing a search in the upload log of Leire Cano, I found that this is possibly the file that is referred to. Thanks. —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 15:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, It is the same. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 15:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

copyvio

hello someone can see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Kurodita09

bye --Chatsam (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I've added copyvio template and listed the user at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism. For future reference: Kurodita09 uploaded five full Stephen King books in PDF format. In Spanish. With random categories. - Alexis Jazz 01:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Files have been deleted, user been banned. - Alexis Jazz 20:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:PD-old-assumed

Request: Could an administrator either remove the sysop-only protection from this template, or put it up for deletion on my behalf please.

Currently the template is used in just over 200 files, but should not be in use on any file, and should be replaced with established licenses. As has been raised before, though some administrators seem to believe there is a consensus for a 120 year rule for copyright, this is not supported by consensus. The discussion was closed as "indicative" but an RFC was required and policy and guidelines would have to be written before implementation. The template is misleading, as evidenced by Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zahoray János.jpg where an old version of the same discussion has been referenced as if it were policy.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

You are perfectly aware of how this template came into existence. This must be about your tenth attempt at least to whipe away community consensus on this subject. Please stop starting the same pointy discussion all the time, it's disruptive. Jcb (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Link please. As far as I am aware the link I gave above has been the only attempt at consensus. The conclusion in March 2017, was that an RFC was needed before anything could be implemented. Anyone keen for policy to change, should get on and run the RFC.
In the meantime the template must be deleted, or possibly marked as draft not for use, to ensure it is not mistaken for an official policy or guideline. --Fæ (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
You have been requesting links for many times and those links have been given for many times. The outcome of the discussion regarding this template was very clear. Please stop repeating this pointless discussion every now and then. Jcb (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Jcb, you appear to be arguing when the evidence is completely unambiguously against your point of view. The closure states:
For the above reasons, this discussion should be taken as indicative of a preference for a 120 year period amongst those editors who favour the idea of a cut-off. The next stage, now, should be to open a wide-ranging discussion and RFC of a more detailed policy, based on the preferred 120 year default. Once that discussion has concluded, and rules or guidelines have been agreed for the various specific situations that might arise, there should be a final binding discussion and !vote to bring the new policy into force.
Please stick to the evidence before dismissing my request as "disruption" or "pointless". This is not a personal attack, it is a matter of policy.
--Fæ (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
A pointless quarrel. A template of such kind should obviously have a parameter—the year of creation or first publication—to be automatically compared against {{CURRENTYEAR}}. Unsure how didn’t anybody of the crowd get it earlier. Will sysops care of adding this logic? Dubious… hence protection seems to be counter-productive. But there can be disagreement on what namely to do with files where {{CURRENTYEAR}} − year is less than 120, or within [120, 130), or else. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
There's no quarrel, there are facts. The proposal that Jcb put to the community was closed by a bureaucrat with direction of the next step that must happen, before any policy changes. The RFC with details of policy changes must be put to the community, before a consensus or policy can be claimed to be in place. A template or license release statement that relies on the new policies, can only be a draft, because they have yet to be agreed. Jcb's personal views should not override the consensus process. --Fæ (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Commons:Cut-off_date_for_PD-old_files is quite clear - "This page is a work in progress page" but given the previous consensus at the Village Pump, I don't think it needs to become a big issue. I propose we should finish the RfC and get the template approved properly. I'll ping @MichaelMaggs: in the hope he's still monitoring Commons and might be able to write a few words to get the RfC started. Nick (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Steve Jobs Uppershot 2010-CROP2.jpg

Could someone delete this image of Jobs. The nose has been photoshopped to appear larger and it was on the main page for a few hours. Thanks, Stephen (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Note that the actual crop is at file:Steve Jobs Headshot 2010-CROP2.jpg if anything needs replacing. Stephen (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Some background. zzuuzz (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Anti abuse prevention

L.S.
I am busy uploading a large amount of CC-0 images from Dutch National Archives, but encountering some technical difficulties (anti abuse) and I don't know who I can ask for help. Can I contact someone personally or on this noticeboard?
Regards, Alf van Beem alias Mr.Nostalgic (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@Mr.Nostalgic: try Commons:IRC. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. I have posted my question. Regards Mr.Nostalgic (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

This DR

Has any Admin Jameslwoodward, Jcb, Ankry etc seen this DR? If Hamed Malekpour is only a freelance photographer who takes pictures for Iran's Tasnim Agency, and not an agency photographer for Tasnim, then perhaps Commons may or should not keep his 1,000+ images here. Commons had a recent mass DR in a separate case when a photographer for a Spanish newspaper claimed copyright over her images because she was a third party photographer. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

  • What does it mean if it says on the Tasnim license that "All Content by Tasnim News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License"? Does it include a freelance photographer...when the Tasnim template says "all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license"? Just curious, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Village pump cleared

A user recently deleted the majority current and older discussions on Commons:Village pump with this edit, just before a bot archival even, and I am unable to revert the changes. Note this may have been a mistake on the user's part. Could somebody look into restoring the topics that weren't archived? Thank you. Animalparty (talk) 08:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Animalparty: I thought I’d fixed it by editing the version immediately before the mistaken edit (and cleaning up some duplication in the archive). What threads are missing now? If I messed it up worse, I’ll be happy to do any necessary repairs.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I believe the problem is fixed now. Thank you. Animalparty (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh, good. Sorry, @Animalparty, I should have checked the timestamp: you started this thread only a minute before my reversion. I still invite anyone else to verify that nothing got lost.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479: You did fine: Revision of Commons:Village pump. As for ArchiverBot, I would say just wait for ArchiverBot to pass by tomorrow. All the discussions are back so they'll be archived next time. - Alexis Jazz 19:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I intend to keep an eye on the archive for a while; I left some partial threads there that will become redundant when the ‘finished’ versions are duly archived.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect messages documentation

User:카리야진 created many mncorrect messages documentation pages.Please delete them.Thanks --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@-revi: can you please check these edits as a native Korean speaker? De728631 (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Smells machine translation. Do we explicitly forbid machine translation? — regards, Revi 17:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
@De728631: The pages I am referring to are composed of the text of the messages in English --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
@De728631 and -revi: ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 refers to documetation of translation units – all those files with qqq suffix: Special:DeletedContributions/카리야진. Earlier today I deleted 4–5 of them, others had been deleted by Didym. --jdx Re: 19:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I figured as much. I'm not aware of our current translation policy at Commons other than that there are special translation admins who have to review translated texts before they go online. From my experience at the English Wikipedia though I can tell that machine translations are prone to errors and should never be used for articles, not to ,mention "official" sites such as policy pages, administrative boards and so on. De728631 (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh. Didn’t realize that. Anyway.... I always believe no translation is better than machine translation, which is frequently inaccurate at best, usually misleading or sometimes it even doesn’t constitute a sentence. — regards, Revi 19:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

RFCU move request

Could someone move Commons talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/今吉秀子 to Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/今吉秀子? Thanks, 153.205.172.99 11:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Taivo and File:KKL Fakultas Kehutanan.png

Most of you are already aware that certain areas of Commons: space are inundated with pages created by unusers (banned users). Yesterday it resulted in a case looking, at best, as a procedurally invalid deletion. At worst, Taivo essentially proxyed for a globally banned troll.

Facts
  1. An account Aubrey Jett 88 was registered. There is currently a community consensus that it was operated by a Wikimedia-wide banned sock puppeteer and troll.
  2. Said account nominated the file:KKL Fakultas Kehutanan.png for deletion.
  3. I, Incnis Mrsi, checked the file—alongside many other delete-tagged files—and did not find valid reasons for deletion of this one. Also I checked that no legitimate Commons user expressed yet any opinion related to the case.
  4. I made actions necessary to revert—not completely, but effectively—changes by the unuser. Namely:
    • Removed {{Delete}} and added relevant categories;
    • Userfyed the deletion request page (making in invisible from the daily log);
    • Rolled back the message on user_talk of the uploader.
  5. (conjecture only) Taivo pushed into a red link on the daily, followed a redirectless page move via the move log, and got User:Aubrey Jett 88/Deletion requests/File:KKL Fakultas Kehutanan.png.
  6. Taivo made actions imitating a regular “Deleted” closure of a delreq:
  7. Taivo provided no additional information (why did he process a userfyed page created by an unuser) and did not make results visible from daily and monthly deletion log pages.


Assessment by Incnis Mrsi

My own actions were motivated by avoidance of any discussion with the banned troll. Of any form which can be perceived as discussion—such as replies on discussion pages—after statements from a banned person.

Deletion was invalid in its form and pretext.

  • For the form: one may not effect an action looking as a formal discussion closure based on a user-space page invisible from daily logs – Commons:Deletion requests/2018/02/08 in this case.
  • For the pretext: the file page was not tagged by a legitimate user and did not bear deletion-related templates when Taivo deleted it, so the action is based on a personal opinion at best. The circumstances, especially timing, made the incident an unreviewed speedy deletion, which is discouraged for any borderline case. Moreover, proxying for a person banned both by community process and WMF Office is an offence itself and is utterly incompatible with actions made in rôle of a site administrator.

Also, a page not linked (transclusion counted) from anywhere—except for this posting, from now on—effectively conceals this highly objectionable action from review. Bad for accountability.


Attempts to resolve by negotiation between parties
Here; no further reaction from Taivo.
Note that Taivo doesn’t seem to have a habit of inactivity on Saturdays: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 weeks ago; (December 30), 7, 8, 9 weeks ago.


Correction sought
  • Make a clean—without messages from banned users—restart of the deletion process for the file;
  • Strongly advise Taivo against exercising admin’s authority over it.

Thank you for attention. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

If you disagree with a file deletion, go to COM:UDR. For random shouting at fellow users, there is no place at any noticeboard. Jcb (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:La Reina consorte de España.png

Uploader declared "own work", but the image can be found here:

http://www.corazondejoyas.com/la-pasion-la-bisuteria-la-reina-letizia/

--Jkbw (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done by Rastrojo: deleted twice. --Achim (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete all uploaded images

Hi, I would like you to delete all the images I uploaded up to now and if possible, my entire account. I get really annoyed by other Wikipedians and their annoying attitudes. (Dchui91 (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC))

Hi Dchui91,
Their attitude is right. They have informed you about some copyright issues of your images. I deleted all your images as copyright violations. But we don't delete accounts. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Ruby Gloom Fan 2002

Incorrect Information

The information page on my cricket umpiring career contains seriously incorrect information. Kindly assist in correcting this. Kind Regards Ahmed Esat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesat1 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Aesat1: Hi,
You are in the wrong project. For correcting the article, you have to ask on Wikipedia. Wikimedia Commons is only concerned about multimedia files. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Commons:WikiProject Public Domain now marked "historical"

I marked Commons:WikiProject Public Domain as "historical" due to declining activity there. It was discussed at Commons:Village pump/Copyright, where a few editors agree about the WikiProject's declining activity. I marked some others as historical, like Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/URAA review. Please feel free to remove the "historical" tag if someone else disagrees. George Ho (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC); (De-marked some subpages. George Ho (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC))

Template:PD-old-assumed - a draft notice is required

As per the discussion above, now archived, this template is not supported by policy and a bureaucrat closed Jcb's proposal from last year with the requirement that an RFC is required to establish policies and consensus on the detail of implementation.

Unfortunately as Jcb has sysop-only protected the template, I cannot restore the "DO NOT USE THIS TEMPLATE YET" sign that was clearly displayed until the time the proposal was closed. Archive link.

Could an administrator either reduce the page protection so that I can make the necessary changes to ensure this template is not used in error (as it has been example), or mark the template as being in draft status until an RFC is created.

I am going to take the opportunity to give Jcb a friendly trout, for using the archive of AN as evidence that other admins support this template and implicitly agree with implementing his proposal without the required community consensus on details.Diff

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Excuse me but I think Jcb is right here. In the last vote about this, I see 15 votes for 120 years (including yours) and 5 for 130 years.
Now, we need to write the documentation for the template and some information for Commons:Cut-off date for PD-old files. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The template is being misused as a license because Jcb made it official before any details are written or agreed. It is being incorrectly used for works where PD-old-70-1923 applies, it is being incorrectly used where photographers are unknown. It should remain marked as not in use until the way it may replace other agreed licenses are explicitly defined for users. --Fæ (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, we just have to officialise the usage of the template? (which I admit to have used for old photographs with unknown author - which can be of course be published with a less protective template… but this is another history) In the template page, some improvements have been proposed, like a "creation date" and a "copyright term" for countries where the term is different than 70 years PMA. --Ruthven (msg) 09:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
There's more than tidying up the template. The closure of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/03#Cut-off_date_for_PD-old that has been referred to here, requires that a detailed policy or guideline for how this new license is to be used and worked with existing PD-old and PD-unknown templates is made clear. I imagine that will end up with a workflow chart showing how to pick the right template and what evidence is required for users (and new users) to follow rather than long texts.
There are even undiscussed complex issues of how we swap this template for more legally meaningful templates (like PD-old-70) as soon as the original work is the correct age for them to apply.
Until these requirements are addressed, the template should not be in use. As can be seen by current usage in 260 images, it is certain to be incorrectly used.
Keep in mind that this "license" is not supported by copyright law. We have a duty of care to ensure that no reusers are misled by what this template means. --Fæ (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, the template is supported by common sense, but this seems to be lacking on Commons... Regards, Yann (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
It is indeed misuse in some places. I am correcting them right now. But do not throw the baby with the bathwater... Regards, Yann (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: Can you at least warn the people that misused it?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
It was used for 18th and older works of art presumably because the author is unknown. Obviously, in these cases, the author died more than a hundred years ago, so PD-old-100 should be used. So yes, but unfortunately, in this case, the uploader is not reachable. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: Very strange, it seems that case's uploader has disappeared from the publicly-visible database, as if its row was dropped.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Apparently, this is the result of meta:Steward requests/Username changes/2018-02#MichellevanLanschot. The file log and file description history looked correct, but the "File history" section on the file description page didn't update until I purged its cache. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
All files which use wrongly this template are from the same GLAM import, but by different users: Category:Media from Erfgoedcentrum Rozet. It is the whole GLAM project which should be informed. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Just a prompt that when the author/photographer is unknown and there is no reason given for significant doubt that they can become known through reasonable enquiry, this template should never be used, regardless of whether it was created in the 18th, 19th or 20th century.
The rule of thumb should be that this template may become a statement of consensus once there is an RFC, but will never be a legally meaningful release statement that reusers can truly rely on. It's similar to giving a rubber stamp of "no copyright known". Where a legally meaningful release statement or license can be justified, it should always take precedence or replace this template. --Fæ (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you that a more precise release statement or license would be better, but IMHO, seeing the amont of undetected copyright violations or wrongly licensed files on Commons, you give to much weight to our license statements. Just my 2 Rs. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Others uploading copyvios is not a reason to skip having proper policies and well written templates for copyright releases.
It becomes critical when uploading 100,000 images using a fixed rule for licences. My uploads this week User:Fæ/LOC are a good example, there are five different types of license that are automatically applied depending on date and collection type. Their use is precise and highly accurate in order to avoid future mass deletions such as have occured on Library of Congress collections in the past (e.g. WW1 posters published in Germany). If our policies and guidelines are missing or wooly, then frankly, I would advise GLAMs and other large scale mass uploaders to not upload any content that relies on associated templates, as these are likely to bite them or embarrass their organization later. --Fæ (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I only now noticed that this template is currently being questioned. As far as I see it, this template is an important step towards more "honest" public domain notices, as in the past, often "PD-old-70" or "PD-old-100" was simply assumed due to the age of an image, without knowing the author's year of death and where it's theoretically still possible that they died less than 70 (100) years ago. For example, Yann changed {{PD-old-assumed}} in File:Jakob Joseph Matthys StUrsenkalender 1.png to ({{PD-Art|PD-old-70-1923}}), I then changed it to {{PD-Art-two|1=PD-old-assumed|2=PD-1923}} (before reading this discussion). It's an image published in 1872 in Switzerland. I wouldn't use {{PD-Switzerland-old-unknown}} because this is only for cases where it's known that the author is unknown (as the notice in fine print says, "this applies only if a reliable source is cited to indicate that the author is not publicly known; just not knowing who the author is is not enough to qualify the image as public domain"). It's a misuse of this template and similar templates such as {{PD-anon-70-EU}} if used on images where the uploader simply didn't see an author mentioned in the source. It's also an inappropriate use of PD-old-70 templates to apply them to images where the author (currently unknown to us) very well could have died less than 70 years ago. The author of an image published in 1872 could have been born e.g. in 1850 and died in 1950. It's not very likely, but not impossible. Therefore, it is, in such cases, a reasonable assumption to treat the image as public domain - but we should, in all honesty, state that it is only an assumption. And that's exactly what {{PD-old-assumed}} does. Gestumblindi (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't know where "reliable source is cited to indicate that the author is not publicly known" is stated, but that is not required by copyright law and it should be removed. The only requirement is that we make "reasonable" attempts to discover the author/photographer name if the file remains hosted on Wikimedia Commons. It is a serious mistake for Wikimedia Commons to start writing guidelines or templates which do significantly more than the law requires.
There are by now probably well in excess of a million historical photographs on Commons where the photographer is unknown and it would be literally impossible, or rather stupid given the context, to find a reliable source that states in print that the photographer is "unknown". They are unknown, because they are unknown and remain unknown after what any judge or magistrate would say was a reasonable attempt to find records. --Fæ (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Fæ: "Reliable source ..." is stated in {{PD-Switzerland-old-unknown}} and there is similar wording in other "anonymous work" templates. {{PD-anon-70-EU}} states "Please use this template only if the author never claimed authorship or his/her authorship never became public in any other way". In theory, this is a requirement that's very hard to fulfil, because I might be able to say that I found no author in the source I used for an image, and not in source X, Y, and Z - but that still is no proof that the "author never claimed authorship". There is also {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} which really seems redundant (same thing as PD-anon-70-EU with different wording, isn't it?)... I'm not quite sure where these statements originally come from, but e.g. in Germany, according to de:Anonymes Werk (Urheberrecht), the protection of anonymous works falls back to 70 years p.m.a. as soon as the author or their heirs disclose authorship. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Hi. I placed an edit request at File:Flag of Thailand.svg, but no one seems to have seen it. There's also quite a backlog at Category:Commons protected edit requests. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done I changed the protection. Yann (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I already uploaded the flag. -- User: Perhelion 09:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Yann, Paul 012, and Zscout370: I added the upload protection again... (as reverted again, "high traffic", this absolute simple file has now 20 versions). -- User: Perhelion 11:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Global blacklist discussion about .club, .space, .website

Seeking the community's opinion on the usefulness and ready availability to utilise links to the top level domains

  • .club
  • .space
  • .website

Due to the amount of spam activity featuring these websites (spambot and some user), there is a general conversation about the usefulness of these three top level domains for the Wikimedia sites. Discussion at m:Talk:Spam_blacklist#Thoughts_about_blacklisting_.club/_.space/_and_.website/

If there is useful feedback for the global community, please add it to that discussion. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Module:File needs update

Module:File needs an update regarding MP3, i.e. this must be moved upwards from not supported to fully supported file types. BTW also the MIME type for MP4 is wrong – at least it should be video/mp4, but I do not know which one is used by Mediawiki. (The right one actually depends on video, iana.org: video/mp4, or audio, iana.org: audio/mp4.) — Speravir – 00:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Jarekt, you are the last admin who edited the file. I assume you know what to do. (It is in the moment protected for non-admins). — Speravir – 19:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Speravir I am just about to take off for the weekend to a place without web access. I can look at this on Tuesday. However I am quite unfamiliar with this module and what is it useful for, so it might be better is some more familiar tackles it. Edit can be requested with {{Editprotected}}. How does the current issue manifest itself? --Jarekt (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Speravir and Verdy p: The order of the file types seems irrelevant, so the change would be only code cosmetic (to the inline code comments).
@MP4: that seems simply true, so I fulfilled your request.
✓ Done -- User: Perhelion 20:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Perhelion: True, this is an array indexed by unique key, so the order is just there because of the comments above lines, and they are preferably sorted alphabetically in each group to avoid creating duplicate keys by accident. It seems that MP3 are now supported (so your change), and that MP4 got a new default MIME type
But note that guessing effective MIME types from only the extension here, has always been fuzzy, especially for MPEG files that have various extensions when the true MIME type would require parsing the content to find relevant codecs, you may even have an MP3 audio in an "*.mp4" file, this is always a generic MPEG envelope parser that will be invoked to determine the effective content type of embedded streams, and the format of their associated codecs indicated inside the header of each embedded stream by a "4-letter codes"; many players won't complain and will play correctly even an *.ogg file or *.wmp file even if it contains a MP4 video stream or MP3 audio stream, and not necessarily the MPEG enveloppe format for embedding streams.
Think about it: there are tons of possible codecs which can be embedded in various envelope formats, including MP3 audio within an OGG envelope format for a file named "*.oga", or WMP4 video stream within an MPEG envelope format for a file named "*.mp3" ! Guessing on file-extensions just gives an idea of what kind of envelope format parsers with can use to detect streams inside and their respective format/codecs to use. Many players now ignore these extensions (and don't have a suitable MIME type from the filesystem where they are stored) and will first parse the magic headers in file headers to detect the actual envelope format, and then select a relevant "demuxer", and then will enumerate the streams detected by the "demuxer" and their respective headers to know which kind they are in order to select the actual codec to read it, and then will build a synchronization object to play all these streams together according to their mutual synchronization points (such as timecodes), or process only some of the streams (e.g. language selectors for audio and subtitle streams, or only one of the alternate streams at different encoding rates/quality that the renderer can support, or only some audio streams if the renderer cannot support 5.1 channels and will only render stereo).
MPEG codecs are a mess, many possible codecs are protected by IP rights and patents (e.g. AALC). You may still have an "*.mp3" file containing some MPEG envelope, but using a patented and restricted codec for its audio streams, not really encoded in MP3 but in WMA!
What we really support if not file types, or MPEG envelope format (via the standard MPEG "demuxer", but individual stream formats (i.e. individual codecs identified by their 4-letter code in their own header).
And several stream formats in MPEG envelope have severe privacy and security issues (they can contain active streams with scripts, and if they are run, they will "phone home" to some external parties.
I'm not sure that the MPEG demuxer used in Commons can filter out from the envelope the streams using unsupported or undesired stream types (e.g. remove the additional 5.1 channels, or scripted channels, or "unknown" stream types), to keep only the streams we support and reduce the total filesize. This can be a security and privacy risk if we accept to host "MP3" and "MP4" files. We should see all MPEG (and even OGG) multimedia formats as if they were a "ZIP" archive containing multiple files with arbitrary MIME types, including executable code. verdy_p (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Thx, Perhelion. Verdy p, maybe I misunderstand your novel, but at least Firefox does look on the submitted MIME type (e.g. if you understand German, read this: Video-Format oder MIME-Typ wird nicht unterstützt). And in Commons we all should know, that the file extension is not reliable: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Example.png (intentional external variant) does link to the file description page and has content-type: text/html, only with https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Example.png you get content-type: image/png and the actual image. On the other hand both Apache and nginx have a mime.types file in their configuration for mapping “Internet media types to unique file extension(s)” (cite from Apache’s mime.types file). Regarding MP3 it seems you missed that it is meanwhile accepted as file type on Commons, this is the reason for my request – I just additionally noticed the MP4 issue. — Speravir – 21:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
What I say is that the submitted MIME type is not even more relevant than the submitted filename if we don't actually parse the content (at least the envelope format to check if it has the correcct signature for the envelope, and then to enumerate the streams types it contains) to see if it really matches the submitted MIME type, and even when it does, if it includes unsupported streams (active scripts in some streams, or codecs with IP restrictions).. verdy_p (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if Commons supports an antiviral scanner (clamav ?) to check for malicious multimedia types that could have been submitted with falsified MIME type or file names, if we want to avoid hosting these files and helping to distribute them to the net. The envelope format may be valid (conformant) but still if we accept random unknown streams in them, these files can be used as vectors. Even javascripts embedded in SVG may be used now as vectors; same remark about PDFs, or Office documents (including .odt) ! I don't care much what the user's browser will do (we cannot control which browser or version our visitors will be using, it's not the best placement and we must be proactive by checking files we host, the same way that we are active are checking IP rights and copyvios to remove illegal contents, we can also inspect files technically to detect if they are what they are supposed to be). verdy_p (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Image uploaded on top of another and both are mixed up.

I was reported this really weird case of a file uploaded on top of another by an anonymous user on my discussion page. I copy his message here as I think one needs admin-right to solve this:

File:Necromanis_franconica.jpg - a different file has been uploaded on top of the old one. That causes a mismatch in mt.wikipedia, which uses the old file via a local copy under that name. The mt-copy could be deleted, if the old file would reappear in commons. Since 2016 several Wikipedias display an image that never was intended there. Could you re-upload the new file as File:Comparison - Sansanosmilus palmidens - Necromanis franconica.jpg and restore the old one? 85.182.86.148 15:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Michael F. Schönitzer 20:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit unfortunate that this was reported so late. The original file has been overwritten, contrary to our policy, in 2016. --Túrelio (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Michael, see COM:SPLIT, I’ve added a request. @Apokryltaros: Never do do this again, please! Cf. COM:OVERWRITE. — Speravir – 22:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Another example, and my intuition suggests that more can be found. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there are more. In Special:ListFiles/Apokryltaros every file which has not the upload comment “User created page with UploadWizard” should be checked. — Speravir – 23:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I looked at them all and those are the overwritten images I found:
I did not include here images where only the colors where changed slightly. A few of the above could be considers smaller changes but I would split them all. -- Michael F. Schönitzer 00:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Really low quality pictures from football games

Hi, could someone please check these uploads by the user MYS77. Most of them have a really low, blurry quality. The user also adds them to their wiki articles, for example this one. It’s nice that the user tries to upload missing pictures of players but I don’t think there is any additional value for wiki users with this quality (on the contrary). Can an admin contact him about it, please? Thanks in advance! --Abu-Dun (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Abu-Dun: Where can I place my bets on these being cropped from stills of television broadcasts? - Alexis Jazz 16:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: According to his en.Wikipedia profile he is based (or at least born) in Brazil. This or this for example could be taken from a seat in the stadium and heavily zoomed in afterwards. They also have EXIF data (Sony Xperia M2 Aqua D2403). But I also don’t want to rule out your version. --Abu-Dun (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Abu-Dun: I hadn’t noticed the EXIF, so I stand corrected. Many are taken with that Sony phone, some of the older ones with a Motorola XT305 phone. For the PNG images there is no way to tell, he probably cropped them and the EXIF got lost when he saved them as PNG. As long as there is no better image available of the people depicted, I see no problem. In fact, I’d hereby like to applaud MYS77 for adding images of people we have no image of yet. A blurry picture still beats no picture. - Alexis Jazz 17:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: So this picture for example is useful in the infobox for the reader of the article? I definitely don’t think so at all. --Abu-Dun (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Abu-Dun: It’s not great, not so much because of the quality but because we are looking at the back of his head. Despite that, I disagree with you: it beats having no picture. It should be replaced as soon as a better picture becomes available. - Alexis Jazz 18:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

And now he is putting them back into the articles... see here. --Abu-Dun (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Abu-Dun: I do admit that some, like that one, don't really help. File:Serginho vs Sao Bernardo-30 01 16.jpg at least shows something and I prefer that over no picture. On File:Santos vs Vitória - Daniel Guedes.jpg I can't even really see any of his skin. And it has strange artifacts. I'll leave him a message on his talk page. - Alexis Jazz 09:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Thanks! Have a great Sunday. --Abu-Dun (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Renaming

Made a mistake with renaming process Category:Marie (ship, 1991). Found out later that it is Category:Maria (ship, 1991, Falkenberg) --Stunteltje (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed it. On that note, please do not move category pages using the "move" button as the content, i.e. the files, will stay in the old category if you do so. If you need a new category, please create the new page and then re-categorise the files to this new category. After that you may redirect the old category page. De728631 (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I use the "Cat-a-Lot" tool for moving the files. Normally no problem, but in this case I blundered by 2x renaming, 1x too much. And I cannot repair this myself. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for Administrator at a Deletion Request

Hello. Can an Admin please take a look at this Deletion Request. It has been up for 7 days, as reached no consensus, and is becoming a point of conflict. In fact no disinterested parties have participated nor are they likely given the way the discussion has progressed. I offer this in as neutral a way as I can. Thank you. --Theredproject (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done DR has been closed by Yann. De728631 (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Zero to end

https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/02/16/partnerships-new-approach/ - I shan't shed a tear. If it had not been for the quick construction of the EmbeddedDataBot, we would have had thousands to bad files. Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Good news, but it will still take until the end of 2018 until the last contracts are expiring (as far i know). --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
If both parties agree, it may be terminated earlier. Etisalat enmeshed in a debt crisis that resulted in change of its ownership and hundreds of staff members retrenched. I don't know if this sort of partnership is a contributing factor but I'm unsure Etisalat Nigeria would wait till ending of 2018. It's still working in my home country, anyway. Wikicology (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Claiming credit for someone else's images?

First of all, I apologise if this is the wrong place to put this sort of query, but I was unclear as to any other options. Having seen Sander.v.Ginkel being indefinitely blocked on the English Wikipedia, I've noticed that some pictures that have been uploaded by this user appear to have a different author name against them, but linked to Sander's Commons userpage. This one is denoted as A. van Amersfoort, this one as N. Beek and this one as P. Mast. Just thought I would raise, seeing the issues from the English wiki. Craig(talk) 18:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree there is a problem here. Wikicology (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ Handled This user has been blocked, as well as there sockpuppet that dates back to 2009 per CU confirmation outside of Commons. Both accounts have similar uploading patterns, same topic, editing each others images and throughout, uploading as own work while attributing other author's names. At this point in time, there has been clear demonstration that this user cannot be trusted to upload own use images and all shall be deleted as copyright violations accordingly. Considering a block on now three different wikis, I don't expect this to be fought. If so, OTRS will need to be involved. ~riley (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
For transparency, was OTRS used misleadingly, and if so which tickets are relevant? --Fæ (talk) 07:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Not sure if you misunderstood what I said, Fae. My only mention of OTRS is that they may need to get involved; they have no current involvement at this point in time. They will be involved if and when needed if that is your concern. ~riley (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Now a half of items from Special:ListFiles/Sander.v.Ginkel has possibility to be deleted. For example, File:Stage 2 Brainwash Ladies Tour (Team Specialized Lululemon).jpg does not look like a genuine photo, more like a still high-definition video frame. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I would not trust anything that is marked as "own work", I deleted all that sign a different author's name. I don't feel like getting into the nitty-gritty over the grey area photos personally, it is most appropriate for those to go to DR. That said, it is worth noting that majority of his images have been reviewed and correlate to Flickr. It is only the own work images I am concerned about. Thanks for quoting the user here, but I will handle direct response on the user talk page instead of playing telephone tag. ~riley (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Commons:List of administrators

I noticed today that the system total at the bottom of Commons:List of administrators by date does not match the number of people listed. Three Users appear on our lists of Administrators (by date, by language, and alphabetical), but do not appear on the system generated list of sysops:

Since these are long standing colleagues and I see no evidence that they have lost the sysop bit, I wonder what is going on. I note that User:B dash removed the User Box template or Category for Admin from all three user pages today. That may have been simply housekeeping, since the system does not show them as Admins, or it may have been something more.

A look at the logs for the three confirms that there has been no recent removal of the sysop status, but the system does not show them as Admins under the verify function:

So, is there something here I am failing to understand? Or, has something strange happened? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I appear to have lost my sysop rights. What's going on? tsca (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
See Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2018, two of them are inactive (i.e. perform less than 5 admin action) for two section, the other one resign in the inactivity section. --B dash (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
It feels really unpleasant to get the rights removed this way, after 14 years of working in the project. I've had some very active periods, and admittedly less active ones as well, but I have remained an active contributor for all these 14 years. And now I've apparently become a cell in an Excel spreadsheet. Not even a personal message. tsca (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tsca: You were warned in this edit. Sorry if it was impersonal. You are welcome to reapply.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Stewards and @B dash: Please remove users from those lists upon deadminship to reflect reality.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Commons:List of administrators requires admin to edit. --B dash (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@B dash: Sorry, at least you could add an {{Editprotected}} to Commons talk:List of administrators.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done Listed edited. Yann (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I spent perhaps 45 minutes researching something that should have been obvious, so I'm not particularly happy with the handling of this. Rather than simply removing the babel box entries, B dash might have come here to request the edits to the three lists or, as Jeff suggests, used {{Editprotected}}. He or she might also have updated Commons:List of former administrators at the same time. I see that he did that after I posted this.
This leaves open the question of why the log does not show the reduction of status. If I go to the log for INeverCry it shows all of the times he became an Admin, but none of the resignations or the de-sysop. I looked at several other Admins and former Admins and all of the upticks are shown, but none of the reductions. Why?
[later edit] I see that the desysop action is shown on the log on Meta. This begs the question of why one log shows only the upticks and the other only the downticks.
I also think that in cases like these, where an Admin resigns, or loses sysop status for inactivity, but otherwise is in good standing, that we should routinely add autopatroller, image reviewer, file mover, patroller and rollbacker. Yann, you're the most senior sysop and tsca, you were the second most senior, what do you think? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: I agree with the concept, but in such cases, wouldn't autopatroller and patroller be redundant?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think so -- autopatroller means that one's own uploads are automatically patrolled. Patroller means that you can patrol other people's uploads -- those that were made by people who are not autopatrolled. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Patrol is redundant to License Reviewer per this edit. Autopatrol is redundant to Patrol per this other edit.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Aha, thanks. -- as I often say, I learn something new every day. The latter is old, but the former is a recent change. Perhaps the text at the User Rights Management page should reflect this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
As far i know only autopatroller was added in previous cases, and lr flag upon request (not necessary at LRR because former admin). But there is no written rule. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I agree that license reviewer, file mover, rollbacker, and patroller should be added automatically (unless of course the user doesn't want them). Regards, Yann (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I will give them back these rights tomorrow unless someone disagrees. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Who “someone”, am I included? No objections against Rubin16 and even tsca (although the latter demonstrated a situational unawareness here), but I would not be glad to see Bastique’s sysop restored without an RfA. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Incnis Mrsi: The discussion is not about giving them the admin right without a RfA, but only the other rights. Otherwise, what are your objections? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. If no sysop is in question, then abstain. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Am Spitz 11.JPG

I temporarily deleted this file to split the upload history. This request came in Commons:History merging and splitting/Requests. I moved the overwritten file to File:Am Spitz 11 (2).jpg, but now I am unable to restore File:Am Spitz 11.JPG. Can someone please help? --Sreejith K (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I had similar case in the past. I asked for help on one of our boards, but nobody was able to help. Anyway, after a few days something "magical" happened and I was able to restore temporarily deleted file. --jdx Re: 05:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
See also phab:T129212. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Undo your work and it's good. -- Bwag (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Is my photo for the rubbish, now? -- Bwag (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, This is a technical issue. We are trying to fix it. See phab:T45952. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Can not access old account after email-address change

Hi , I can not access my old account as I have a new email address and can not access my old email address. Old User name ADZee , Old email addresses: a*.***.***.**e@b*********f.nl / a*.***.***.**e@p****t.nl ( I left the addresses scrambled but you should be able to confirm them by the first and last character and number of characters as genuinely used. You can contact me at the email account associated with this address, Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdVanDerZee (talk • contribs) 13:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@AdVanDerZee: In this case there is no way to get your account (with just three edits) restored because a proof of ownership is missing. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

How much more proof of ownership should there be if I am the only one knowing my old email addresses. That alone should be sufficient . — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdVanDerZee (talk • contribs) 21:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

File:The Sanctuary.jpg

Presumably, the first revision, uploaded by Elisalovesyou, shouldn't have been restored when the OTRS permission was approved. Could someone please delete it? —LX (talk, contribs) 17:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Solomon203 socking?

Hi, 220.137.13.60 seems to know the rename template pretty well and seems to have a lot of interest in Chinese images and the renamings (Something Template:Ux had tons of interest in)....., Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I will be the first to block socks, but I don't see any disruption here. With respect to the IP, this is not a case for COM:AN. ~riley (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I just screwed up badly...

I was uploading a CC-BY audio bible and the Upload Wizard messed it up and gave every file the same name and now I have no idea how to fix it... https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Psi%C4%A5edelisto&ilshowall=1 Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

No, the names are different. You can just move them to the names you prefer.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: That's a tedious process I don't have time to do. I'd have to match the filesize I guess to the list I have...then request a move to the right file name 27 times. Can you please delete them all so I can start over? I can't reupload them since I get an error since the files are exactly the same. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 09:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@Psiĥedelisto: I formalized your request at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Psiĥedelisto.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Blockers

A couple of users are working on a proposal for a new user group. Have a look at commons:Blockers. I already put some feedback on Commons talk:Blockers. Multichill (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Unbundling rights is a perennial debate, but this is probably the least logical I've seen in a decade. --Fæ (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Mass upload of most likely copyrighted material

Hi there.

In case that this is the wrong place, please feel free to move the question whereever it's right.

There was a mass upload of automobile adverts from the last 5 or 6 decades. A flickr user taged them as free CC2.0, but it is obvious, that it is material owned by the car companies and not free for our standards. Most of it can be found in the Category:Unidentified automobiles. The Flickr user is JOHN LLOYD (maybe there is a list with problematic flickr users to prevent further uploads?). All pictures by him can be found in Category:Images by John LLoyd (get's really bad from page 5 or 6 on). Maybe not all of them are bad, don't know.

For me, that's about 3 sizes to big. We're talking about maybe 1000 to 3000 files. I do not know what to do and how to do it. Maybe some of the experts can have a look at it and do whatever is needed. Maybe there is no problem and I am wrong...

Thanks a lot, all the best, --Druschba 4 (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Druschba 4: I suspect many could be {{PD-US-no notice}} (before 1977) or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. (before 1963) Commons:Checking if copyright was renewed. - Alexis Jazz 16:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Even if they do - just have a look in there. There are amounts of undated pictures and hundreds with dates you can tell right away that they were made after 1977 (up to the 2000s). What I see is, that we need at least a maintanace cat where all of this stuff should go in and not come out before it's checked + licensed correctly... --Druschba 4 (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Unsupported deletion noms by sock puppet

User:Ivan Aleksandër, a sock of User:Irvi Hyka, recently nominated several of their own images for deletion, with bogus rationales, as part of an apparent long-term sock-campaign to erase their contributions from Commons.

The sock was blocked by User:~riley, so I removed the deletion tags from the images, checking first in each case that here was no support for deletion, and nominated the deletion discussions for speedy deletion.

User:JuTa has reverted me in each case, in some cases on the mistaken assumption that only an admin may take such action.

Can an admin carry out the necessary actions to undo the socks bad-faith actions, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: When you speedy a transcluded DR, the daily DR page it's transcluded into is also speedied. Please don't do that, instead use noinclude tags around the speedy.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Noted, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
DRs now properly closed. Even the one from Albania could be kept, as Albania according to our new reading now has FoP exception. --Túrelio (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but the bogus DRs have not been deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Ivan Aleksandër may be a sock, but does it represent a person banned from the site? IMHO no, and the nomination hence had to be proceeded in a due way. Why Túrelio closed it speedily and where Túrelio and Andy were when Taivo processed a userfyed delreq without explanations and Jcb edit-warred against me then?! This site obviously demonstrates a preferential treatment for certain person who is formally exiled in the strongest form. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi, the closed DRs simply had no valid rationale. The images from Kosovo were claimed to be copyvios due to missing FoP exception, when in fact they showed old buildings. The image vom Albania, claimed to be copyvio due to missing FoP exception, may have been nominated in good-faith. However, we now judge that Albania has a Commons-usable FoP exception. --Túrelio (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, satisfied with this part. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Incnis Mrsi: I've neve heard of you. Please don't try to muddy this discussion with your own, separate grievance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: again… Irvi Hyka’s prophylactic indefblock due to sock puppetry in en.Wikipedia is not ban from Commons. Can anybody name any person banned from the site beyond those persons? Hence, Andy’s assertion that Ivan Aleksandër’s delreq should be rejected without consideration has no grounds in policy, and JuTa’s actions were IMHO motivated by protection of the deletion process and are consistent with the admin’s rôle. Of course, had Commons banned Irvi Hyka by some legitimate process, I’d fully support Andy and detract JuTa because identity of Ivan Aleksandër looks rather evident. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I haven't made any claim of anyone being banned. Irvi Hyka is blocked - and that is blocked on this wiki - and their sock-puppetry is an evasion of that block. I note that Commons:Sockpuppetry soft-redirects to en:Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, which says in its header: "Do not use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt... or to circumvent a block" and, further on: "Using a second account to edit in violation of an active block... will result in further sanctions, which may include removal of your contributions". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Faebot analysed duplicates ready for review

Due to demand, I am re-running this automatic duplicate help script on an experimental basis. Faebot adds lots of helpful information to a duplicate notice, including suggesting which unique categories could be added to the version to be kept. These are not "digitally identical" duplicates, and the script can find duplicate images which are different resolutions as well as images which only vary by EXIF data.

I had "parked" the script, as there were so few people using the results. The current scope is limited to US DOD images, though the underpinning use of image hashes to identify possible duplicates could be extended to other collections where many close duplicates need to be managed. --Fæ (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism/disruption of the Valued Image candidacy of an image of comedian Samantha Pressdee

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Unless there is a blatant case of cheating (identity theft, sockpuppet, falsification of votes, ect...) we can not do anything. If we count the different versions, this image were nominated 3 times, please respect the willingness of the regulars of the VI project not to promote this image. Do not renominate this image or a derivative of this image again, otherwise I guess that it will create more problems than it can solve. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I inserted an image of comedian and feminist Samantha Pressdee in the article Lauri Love in the english wikipedia. When Love recently came into public focus, the caption of the image was added a redlink to Pressdee, the wikidata entry was substantly added to and the commons category was made looking nicer. About 30000 readers looked at the Love article after that and none found a reason to remove the redlink. I nominated the image of Pressdee at the valued image candidates. It meets all six criteria for a valued image. After a request by a regular participant of VIC, i replaced the nomination with a cropped version of the image. This nomination was repeatedly voted down with vote reasonings, that are by no means any of the six criteria. The last round of votes got two pro votes and four oppose:

  1. The first voter used morals as a reasoning (and withdrew from voting, but the vote was counted)
  2. The second voter used harrasment (not beautyful, silly pose, "not every girl", ...) throughout all votings. And did this again at another nomination
  3. The third voter started by giving as a reason, that the images, category and wikidata entry are by me, then instead of withdrawing this vote, started to look for other reasons to keep his ill vote.
  4. The fourth voter voted "per others", agreeing to two or three of the former votes

A renomination would very probably have the same result of ignoring the vote criteria. The first, or second nomination should have been successful, if only votes, that have a reasoning of the VI criteria had been counted.

I think, the closing of the nominations needs to be reevaluated.

--C.Suthorn (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

How can the administrators help you with that issue? Administrators have no special privileges in regards to Features/Valued Images. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • as per Sebari, we can do nothing. It seems your image fail the criteria 1 . The voters don't think this image is the most valuable for the proposed scope, and I tend to agree. Although I've nothing against nudity, unless this person lives shirtless more than half of the time of her life, I fail to see why a picture of her when she is shirtless would be the most valuable to illustrate her. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Repeated vandalism/disruption of the Valued Image candidacy of an image of comedian Samantha Pressdee

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
It has been made clear above that this is not an administrative issue, but solely a content issue. The images in question have been discussed multiple times and there was no community consensus to award them. You may not like it, but you must accept it. Reopening this discussion again here or elsewhere will be seen as disruptive. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


I have to disagree. "(identity theft, sockpuppet, falsification of votes, ect...)" There were three supporting votes:

  • "Support Best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)"
  • "Support All criteria for my --Ercé (talk) 08:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)"
  • "Support Alright, I was pretty sceptical at first. But after reading this review of one of her performances I think this is pretty much exactly how a VI for her should look like. --El Grafo (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)"

And this oppose votes:

  • Spurzem: Oppose. Topless women can be very aesthetic, but what is shown here is as poor as provocative exhibitionism and apparently nothing special in the US now. For these reasons, the picture is not valuable to me. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
    • aestetics, wrongful claims of exhibitionsim are none of the criteria.
  • Martinvl: "Oppose. Who is Samantha Pressdee? Is she notable? There is no Wikipedia article about her. There is a category about her in Wikimedia Commons that has 11 images of her, but if we look more closely, all 11 were taken by the same photographer on the same day; the same photographer created the category and the same photographer nominated this image as a VI. I think that we input from other people as well, either in Commons or elsewhere in Wikipedia. Martinvl (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)"
    • Pressdee's notability has been shown by Pigsonthewing's edit in the Lauri Love article and wikidata and the acceptance of this redlink by 30000 users who did read that article.
  • ThayneT: "Oppose Itslike being flashed every time I visit this page. Please stop." ThayneT (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
    • That is no reason that matches any of the criteria. ThayneT later wrote: "Comment You have already informed me that my vote did not count. " The vote was still counted.
  • Oppose "Per others. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)"
    • others is plural, this is a vote that uses the reasoning of 2 or 3 of the other votes, all of which are outside the criteria.
  • Comment: "unless this person lives shirtless more than half of the time of her life, I fail to see why a picture of her when she is shirtless would be the most valuable to illustrate her. Christian Ferrer (A) (talk) 16:44, 26 "
    • By that you mean, if a person is notable for being a politician for three month, but died at age 23, wikipedia should show a childhood image, because he was a child for 18 years and a politician for three month? Pressdee is notable as a feminist, comedian and campaigner. As a feminist she says men and women are equal and if men have a right to toplessness, than women do also. As a campaigner she takes part in FreeTheNipple events. As a comedian, she distinguishes herself from other comedians by performing topless.

If this is not a falsification (by completely voting against the agreed on criteria), then what is?

--C.Suthorn (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Spelling in protected templates (in French)

  • Template:FoP/fr : "dans lequel l'image a été crée" => "dans lequel l'image a été créée".
  • Template:PermissionOTRS : "permissions que celles données par la license" => "permissions que celles données par la licence "

Thanks. Zetud (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Closure of undeletion requests

... I don't like to see UnDRs closed in less than 24 hours unless the result is restoration for obvious reasons -- the community had an informal agreement about that some years ago, but it seems to have fallen by the wayside

—  Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Copied from Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests by ~riley (talk) on 09:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey all, just thought I would quote @Jameslwoodward with some useful feedback he gave me at Commons:Undeletion requests. I think we all stand to be reminded that requests should be open for at least 24 hours unless restoration is obvious, as stated above. I was unawareness of this until now and I fully support such a closure time. Thanks Jim! All the best, ~riley (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

+1. I usually wait for 24 h after the last comment, unless it is really obvious. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 Support I agree. Ankry (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Possibly unfree image

I was looking over at en.wikipedia's admin noticeboard and found a post related to a website titled rootsfinder.com, the editor in question uploaded this image as a supposedly copyleft image however the website's got a copyright logo which leads me to believe that the image is also copyrighted. Images are not my forte, though, so I'd ask someone else follow up on this if they could. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_67&oldid=290956108"