Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 93

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

Logos

Hi

Do you have an opinion? I have no problem with a deletion if it is legitimate. At least it will clarify the overall situation. And so there are surely other photos to delete and not only mine or even the logos hosted here.--Panam2014 (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Request for closure of an April DR where the nominator never responded.

The nominator of this Deletion Request has never replied to my thorough response since April. I just read above that there is a backlog, however will an Admin please close this one? 

https://commons.Wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_found_with_Foto_Martin_Lätt

Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

 Request , please just wait. there is tons of DRs still waiting like this. that DR is not really special. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 05:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
What makes a DR special? Trade (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
@Trade I would look favorably on a special request to "cut the line" if there were some particular reason the file remaining nominated for deletion was a burden on other projects' work. For example, if there was an enwiki featured article nomination going on and the deletion request being pending was a problem for it. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
The oldest open deletion requests are from January (hundreds), so as Modern primat said, it's not a particularly outstanding processing time, but I note that Yann has closed it now. However, I think it would be good if we had more admins, a backlog of half a year isn't very nice, particularly when it comes to potential copyright violations. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I would like if we could prioritize Derivative work and Threshold of Originality DRs. I think Commons can survive having the Scope-related and dick picture deletion requests stay up some longer Trade (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
lets add proper wiki link here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Foto Martin Lätt ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 21:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Transwiki import

It would be nice if en:TimedText:US Army Special Forces Dive Team-1956.ogv.en.srt could be imported from en.wiikipedia to the same title here. The related file was moved on 8 November 2022 by McChizzle under the same name and since TimedText and Files are closely tied together TimedText should move too. Snævar (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

blacklisted title file move request - ezgif

I recently uploaded a file Ez gif.svg, which is meant to be a logo for the website ezgif.com (to be used in {{created with}}). The desired title, ezgif.svg, has been understandably blacklisted. I would like to request someone with the power to move it to a correct title, either Ezgif.svg or EZGIF.svg. Thank you. 痛Designism (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

There are several DRs in the category that havent gotten a response for more than a month, Could an admin please take a look at them? Otherwise it becomes impossible to nominate these images for deletion Trade (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Trade There are currently 5,554 deletion requests eligible for closure, dating back to January. I'll take a look at a few of them, but generally these categories are not particularly urgent and will clear when progress is made on the backlog. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Could you specifically take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pentapixel? Trade (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I added a comment there, but opted to not close it given the state of discussion. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done. I closed the DR. Taivo (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Crosswiki image spam / copyvio

Valdazleifr (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  uploaded multiple copies of existing files with slight modifications / manipulations without attribution of the original authors and then proceeded to spam his uploads to hundreds of Wikipedia articles [1][2] claiming to improve the „image quality“. See dewiki administrators noticeboard as well.

Johannnes89 (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

early remove by admin

File:画家华涌2.jpg got deleted by @Shizhao , it got marked on 22 june with "no permission" and got deleted in 22 june. please return back file. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 05:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

and all other files stated here: User_talk:Hhqrhh#File_tagging_File:画家华涌2.jpg . ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 05:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
if you have decided that they are copyvios, then please give proper deletion description. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 05:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Files tagged with {{No permission since}} should be deleted after seven days as the template doc itself states that Unless this issue is resolved, the file will be deleted seven days after this tag was added and the uploader was notified on.. Fwiw, the deletion of File:画家华涌2.jpg is very much wrong. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Undelete the file shizhao (talk) 11:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
@Shizhao and others please? User_talk:Hhqrhh#File_tagging_File:画家华涌2.jpg
"""And also:
----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 11:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
@Shizhao, your log shows that you have wrongly deleted several other files that have had been tagged with {{No permission since}} recently. May I know what made you do this? It is seriously weird to see this from by a user who has been a sysop since 2006. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
For File:画家华涌2.jpg, "no permission" may not be the best rationale (although if it is not a selfie, the copyright is uncertain), but it is probably out of scope. And File:CCP Military Airport.png is a montage with a satellite image, so certainly a copyright violation. File:Tashkurgan Khunjerab Airport.png is an aerial picture of a military installation with a Twitter watermark, certainly not OK. Yann (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
@Yann I agree with you but a deleting admin should at the least change the deletion rationale. Having a file tagged with {{No permission since}} on 22 June and deleting it on the same day with the same rationale is problematic. If the deleting admin feels this is a copyright violation or fulfils any other CSD criteria, they should mention this in the deletion rationale so that no one doubts based on the apparent public log. ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
thats what im talking about. thanks aafi. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 15:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
@Shizhao, I hope you take a note of these issues and fix the deletion rationale in future because the "No permission since" rationale does not make sense in these cases and is not inline in any of these quick deletions, and given what @Yann has mentioned, this thread is good to be closed. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
All undeleted shizhao (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi protection request

File:Joe Biden in 1968 Edition of Onondagan Yearbook.jpg - frequennt target of vandalism --Trade (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Two vandalism incidents since 2020 (both very recent) is not "frequent". Jmabel ! talk 15:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
If you would rather spend the rest of summer vacation removing vandalism from the Biden photos, be my quest Trade (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
See Special:Contributions/2600:387:15:910:0:0:0:0/60, this is a problem coming from one person, which I have dealt with by applying a rangeblock. If the rangeblock is ineffective, I'd consider protection, but the rangeblock should be sufficient. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done. One month semi-protection. Taivo (talk) 06:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

File review

Could an admin please look into the history of File:Judith Collins author photo credit Guy Coombes close web (1) (cropped).jpg? Professional-looking photo; cropped from a file that's been deleted but I can't see anything in the history about this; user hasn't uploaded any other of their "own" photos, the upload does not appear in the history of this user's uploads. Maybe it all makes sense when you can see what's been deleted. To me, none of this makes sense; there are alarm bells ringing. Schwede66 00:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

RRZEicons

I spend most of my time here correcting categorization and file infoboxes/attribution. Most of them are cases of intentional misattribution, users who falsely tag the images as own work when they're actually derived from other works (e.g. [18] & [19]), so I corrected hundreds of them via {{Based}} or {{Derived from}} (according to the specific case), but I recently noticed a more interesting case, where the images are technically attributed to the correct user.

We attribute a lot of pictures to User:RRZEicons, but RRZE is not a physical user; it's a collaborative project by the Regional Computing Centre of Erlangen (RRZE), that is the IT department of the University of Erlangen–Nuremberg. I thought it would be better to highlight this, and two options came to my head:

  • changing the attribution tag, e.g. from {{U|RRZEicons}} to {{U|RRZEicons|Regional Computing Centre of Erlangen (RRZE)}};
  • formatting the project userpage turning the titled sections into actual sections, without any text addition, as I tested at User:Est. 2021/sandbox/RRZEicons;

but the automatic filter prevents me from editing "another user's page" (not an actual user, but it is what it is). What can I do? As I said, my goal is to improve the attribution. Thanks, Daniele Fisichella 07:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The uploads by User:RRZEicons don't make any effort to get credited in any particular manner. Given that they apparently don't care, why should we go out of our way to do this? - Jmabel ! talk 15:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Because correct attribution is a beautiful thing, and it's always the right thing; content creators shouldn't make any effort to get correctly credited for their work. Daniele Fisichella 07:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
There is a problem in that the -BY licence requires attribution, and changing attribution in the author fields or editing the user page the attribution points to is messing with that attribution. I suppose one could move the current author field content to an attribution line and substitute {{Anonymous}}, but I agree with Jmabel that we don't need to do anything. –LPfi (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Histlegend/sv update needed

Adding this request here to see if someone with the right permission can update the links for sv and fi, and maybe see if the other languages needs some love also. Thanks in advance. /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Bulk transfers from fr:WP with "own work" claims

I'm concerned about these: ArsusGomz (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , particularly File:Chars--Bobbin.jpg and similar files. They were transferred from the French wikipedia (I don't have their original upload logs) and so they should either have sourcing preserved from that, or were always the transferrer's own work in the first place (as is claimed here). However this image is almost certainly around 1944 and so isn't the uploader's.

Pretty much all the uploader's images are similar transfers from Wikipedia, with the same "own work" claim. But this is now very dubious. For some, like File:Polonium.staticmaster.jpg I'm happy to believe this. It's a recent photo, not a transfer, I can believe the "own work" aspect and the self licensing. But for the majority of these, it's very unclear. File:Tenu--Joffre.jpg is noted as both "own work", "transferred from fr". But if the own work claim on transferred files is dubious on some of them, can we trust it on any of them?

@GeorgHH: Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

SJasminum

Reposting here my concern at admin User:Minorax's talk page.

Kindly check the uploads of this user. Using the same method as detecting Judgefloro socks, I found one of the user's contributions which is File:Caloocan (Central Business District) 01.jpg, with the same title format. Same mass uploading of very redundant and needless "progress" pictures of everything in Metro Manila and Bulacan. Is SJasminum (talk · contribs) another sock (or duck) of Judgefloro (talk · contribs)?

Some added info or comment: SJasminum contests my report at the enwiki talk page of User:I dream of horses. The user even went so far to claim that I am committing cyberstalking (which SJasminum claim is punishable by Philippine laws). There is no reason to claim that my act is cyberstalking: if that is true then the entire COM:RFCU venue is against the law of the Philippines. It has been a practice on Wikimedia (not just Commons, but also Wikipedia and other wiki sites) to check on users with problematic edits so that all users are following the policies of wikis; in the case of Commons, all users are supposed to follow policies connected to copyright as well as scope of content, like being selective and discriminating in uploads and not treating Commons as an extension of Facebook and Instagram, which SJasminum as well as other similar users like Judgefloro (assuming they are not socks) are or were doing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Someone should probably look into this; I'm otherwise occupied right now but for starters I want to remind User:SJasminum that making legal threats is, itself, a basis for a block, and that (barring a specific interaction ban) it is perfectly permissible for a Commons user to track another user's work to check for legitimate problems. - Jmabel ! talk 17:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
What is said without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Per COM:BP: "Tracking a user's contributions for policy violations is not harassment." Эlcobbola talk 17:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I closed the DRs as deleted. Yann (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
@Elcobbola@Jmabel@Yann just a final comment regarding this sock. They made a very outrageous claim that Minorax and I are the same user, claiming they received an intelligence report from the Philippine government. That is an utter nonsense and unbelievable claim. Yes I know SJasminum has been blocked already but, this fact should be a factor in denying the right of SJasminum to be unblocked, for the knowledge of the whole WikiCommons community. Note the user's edit comment is "rejoinder" — a commonly-used term by Judgefloro in his replies in the past. So perhaps SJasminum is indeed Judgefloro (or the suspended judge w:en:Florentino Floro as per Beeblebrox's comment here) or his secretary or assistant at the very least. Note that an early account of his was blocked on English Wikipedia more than a decade ago due to his personal attacks. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. Then these accounts should be globally locked, and a community banning procedure may be in order. Or just contact the Wikimedia Foundation, it may be faster and easier. Yann (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
At this point I think a global ban or maybe asking T&S for an office ban may be in order. This has been going on for a very, very long time across multiple projects, and is clearly not something that can be stopped by us volunteers. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
+1 to Beeblebrox. - Jmabel ! talk 20:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I will leave the global (WMF-level) reporting of the problematic user to other users. I have some important real-life things to do, not to mention that FOP-Philippines is my focus right now, as well as expected more local uploads that Patrickroque01 will dump on enwiki that I need to review one-by-one before transferring compliant ones to Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Please mark the user page.

User:Smagzine is a Cross-wiki spammer and locked by all wikimedia projects. Please tag two templates on his user page. {{Sockpuppeteer}} {{Indefblocked-global}} Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done But you can do that yourself. Yann (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Belarusian Main page at Commons

Hello, there is a problem in links to the main page in belarusian (official orthography, be) version of WikiMedia Commons. Most links go to the https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Галоўная_старонка which is reserved by the version in alternative orthography (taraškievica, be-tarask). I'm trying to fix links to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Галоўная, but for some edits I don't have sufficient rights, and I am not sure which lines are connected to Commons at the TranslateWiki. Can you help me solve this issue?

I'm trying to edit the MediaWiki:Mainpage/be to "Галоўная" for now and I don't have sufficient rights.Note that the older version of the page's name is "Першая старонка", now it is redirect to "Галоўная".

At TranslateWiki support administrators suggested me to ask Commons administrators to create MediaWiki:Mainpage/be with "Галоўная" as the content. Plaga med (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Plaga med: I'm assuming you know what you are doing, and have edited MediaWiki:Mainpage/be accordingly.
If someone thinks this is wrong, feel free to revert me. - Jmabel ! talk 17:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! Now everything is fixed! Plaga med (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done - Jmabel ! talk 14:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Mega809

This user has recently nominated a lot of images he has uploaded himself for deletion. The images (mainly of people) are quite good, some of them are in use. I believe the user is trying to tell that he is not the photographer and copyied the images from somewhere, but he doesn't say from where or doesn't understand my question. Can somebody who understands Spanish take a look at this and clarify the situation, please? PaterMcFly (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

plus as of yesterday, User:Mega809 is a redirect. Pinging @Ontzak: you moved this, what is up with that? - Jmabel ! talk 14:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

New duck of User:NSK Pandan

Senyumnya tak ada, mesranya pun juga Hati siapa yang tak kecewa? (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Same photos as what the previous socks had uploaded. Robertsky (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Already blocked by Elcobbola. Yann (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Kakangkuh

Kakangkuh (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  This account is used for trolling purpose only, copyright violation, and personal harassment. From their contribution at idwiki indicating that they might be one of the socks of LTA IP addresses. Nyilvoskt (talk) 06:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, all files already deleted. Please note that the right board for such cases is COM:ANB. Yann (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request(s) for flag/emblem files

Would someone be able to go through some of the protected edit requests to flag/emblem files? Some of them have been outstanding for a while so per the category page I figured I'd check in here. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 16:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Request for noinclude tags

Hello. Can anyone with admin tools add "<noinclude>....</noinclude> tags in several DRs at Category:Japanese FOP cases/deleted/3D artworks, so that all collaterally-categorized archival daily listings become removed from the said category? I cannot manually add since there are too many DRs with no such tags inserted to the FOP categories. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a good job for a bot. I'll work on that (probably next weekend). —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

User is having a lot of problems across WMF wikis

Kingveesa (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Seems to be using Commons for personal hosting, such as his CV and copyvios. If you look at Special:CentralAuth/Kingveesa, you'll see that he's having a lot of trouble all over. I don't know that he's a vandal or troll, but he's not really understanding the scope of these projects. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Some of these items need to be oversighted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I've blocked as NOTHERE and deleted all uploads. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Why the oversight? Trade (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Files contain personal info which the uploader likely did not realise would be public. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, having looked: one in particular looked like exposing info he should not want to expose. - Jmabel ! talk 16:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Les demandes de retraits des images du relevé Digitized Sky Survet (DSS) reviennent de temps à autre et sont même exécutées. Voici le message que m'a fait parvenir l'organisation STCsi. Je ne sais pas où envoyer ce message pour que les usagers comprennent qu'on peut les utiliser pour ces retraits cessent. Alors, j'espère que ce texte se rendra au bon endroit. « Hi, Thank you for your question. The licenses for SDSS and DSS images are different because there are different contributing organizations to each. However, both are free to use for non-profits for educational purposes, without further restriction. This includes Wikipedia. There is no copyright STScI holds that would prevent using the DSS images on Wikipedia, even though it may not be specifically named in the DSS license.

Referring to https://archive.stsci.edu/publishing/data-use#section-95dab389-f4b4-4a52-8985-dcbfb908d8f2 it appears that use of the color DSS images can be investigated further by contacting [email protected]

Sincerely, The Office of Public Outreach If you need to contact us about this request, please reply to this message Thank you

Ref:MSG3886082_3G5ovN1OD2e2Ytwfh4pg » Donald Pelletier (talk) 08:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Donald Pelletier: The key sentence in the link you provide is "Commercial, for-profit use of the copyrighted collections is prohibited without written permission from the copyright holder(s)." Commons requires that any image it hosts be free for any use, not just educational or non-profit. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Copyrighted image

File:Ohioadult logo.png is likely a copyrighted image, uploaded by an account associated with the company in question. If the account hasn't been locked here, it'd be a good idea to look into it, along with the associated contributions just to be safe. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

This is {{PD-textlogo}}. Yann (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Convenience link: File:Ohioadult logo.png. - Jmabel ! talk 16:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

186.174.163.94 mass nominations for deletion

The IP address 186.174.163.94 appears to be mass nominating images for deletion with nonsense rationales, as can be seen in their contributions. A couple examples:

TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

They don't seem to be nonsense to me. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gianluca Rospi W.png appears valid, as does Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bijan Zamanpira.png (which does not seem to be a selfie, but is uploaded by the person depicted). Indeed, the one they re-nominated appears to be a copyvio too. I've encouraged them to create an account in order to facilitate communication. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Restore

Category:1980 works in Ukraine --Микола Василечко (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
@Taivo: what was the action here? I couldn't understand the request, but you seem to have somehow understood and acted on it. - Jmabel ! talk 17:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Minorax undeleted the category yesterday, look logs of the category. I did nothing. Taivo (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Allow old orphan works

Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Allow old orphan works

Hi, Could anyone close this please? Opened on 13 June, and inactive for a week. There is no opposition, AFAICT. I think we need a template reflecting the consensus of the discussion. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Very questionable if this is compatible with Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle and only 5 supports? I don't think this is ready. Multichill (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

FAN Question

Are you allowed to re-nominate a picture shortly after withdrawal of the same picture? TheBigBookOfNaturalScience (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

No idea what you mean here by "FAN" with reference to something "nominated" or "withdrawn." Presumably not "fan art," since something either is or isn't fan art, you don't nominate it to be fan art. Could you please be clearer? - Jmabel ! talk 00:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
@TheBigBookOfNaturalScience If you're referring to COM:FPC, I'd say you can re-nominate if no one opposed, or if it's not closed yet just remove your withdrawal. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Alright. TheBigBookOfNaturalScience (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
@Mdaniels5757 I also have another question. If someone accidentally supports a picture after my withdrawal, then I remove the withdrawal, can I restore the support comment? TheBigBookOfNaturalScience (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
@TheBigBookOfNaturalScience I would ping them explaining the situation and give them the opportunity to re-add the comment themselves, but would not re-add their comment yourself. (If there were any opposes, do this for them too though!) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
@Mdaniels5757: Is "FAN" a term for FPC that I just didn't know? If so, what does it stand for? - Jmabel ! talk 17:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel It's an enwiki abbreviation (uncommon, I think) for "featured article nomination". —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Please see File talk:America the Beautiful US Navy Band 2019.webm. The recording uses what is most likely a copyrighted arrangement. I cannot nominate the video for deletion because it is currently the MOTD. The fact that it is currently the MOTD, however, should make the consideration of its copyright status more pressing, if anything. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

POTY???

Can users nominate images for POTY? If so, how? TheBigBookOfNaturalScience (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@TheBigBookOfNaturalScience The Commons:Picture of the Year is selected from images that attained featured picture status in that year. All featured pictures from the last year are automatically included, and non-featured images can not be nominated. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber But how do you vote? TheBigBookOfNaturalScience (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Wait, I just made a typo. I meant to say POTD, not POTY. Had to make that clear. TheBigBookOfNaturalScience (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
A Picture of the Day you may freely choose from our Featured Pictures, each picture only once. A connection to a certain date, such as historical anniversary or current event, is welcome, but not necessary. --A.Savin 23:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
@A.Savin So any FP that isn't a POTD can be chosen by anyone, and the picture does not go through voting and is automatically qualified? TheBigBookOfNaturalScience (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, generally it's first-come first-serve for any available spots. Of course, if you have a legitimate reason to choose a specific date and an existing POTD was arbitrarily scheduled there by someone, just talk to them and usually they'd be willing to move their POTD to another day. I suppose if you encounter pushback, you could raise it to the community and have people decide through consensus which image to feature that day, but I've never experienced that personally and can't recall it ever happening in the past, so there's no official procedure to resolve disputes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Lps2000

How long is this user going to be allowed to continue to intentionally anf habitually upload copyrighted images? SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

No longer. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Warning without Assume good faith by user Elcobbola

This discussion has been going in circles for a while, and continuing it isn't going to be productive. AntanO, the CUs have a responsibility to use the tool with discretion. If they tell you that they need you to provide evidence, you need to provide evidence. If you refuse to do so, you're clogging up the process with requests that they can't process and which you've been told they can't process, and that *is* disruptive. While blocking you for that would be an extreme response, it would not be outside their purview to do so, so I suggest that you either start providing evidence or stop submitting CU requests. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2023 (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.

Elcobbola (talk · contribs) made a warning on page and pointing failures to assume good faith and the reason he/she mentioned that Muralikrishna m is over 2-years-old, with more than 15,000 edits to te.wiki, and is in good standing (contradicts timing reference). Well, I contribute to Wikimedia projects for 11+ years with 80,000+ edits, and I'm a sysop in a Wiki. Also, this user said people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. So, what i am doing? I mostly fight against vandalism and copyvios. When I work in other wiki project, I could easily find vandalism, sock, paid edits and other disputed edits. If the user asked, I could have provided evidence from other wiki? Will it accept? I made some CU and the user sniff some and use against me? You can check how many CU I did in Meta with a simple report and I got very positive response since they know my intention. Elcobbola, don't you think Commons:AGF for me, a person contribute for 11+ years while you advocate for 2 year of contribution. You ask me people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. Do you think i hurt the project?

The user thereat me that If you continue filing RFCUs without mandatory evidence, you may be blocked from the Commons namespace or sitewide. Does blocking policy say this? Are you trying to save socks and while targeting me? If you have any hatred, just bring it and we will deal. I don't know what is mandatory evidence. I checked CU and i can't find mandatory evidence. Can you explain it and point me to the reference?

I request other admins to intervene and remove the unprofessional warning which is a humiliation for a pure contributer and . AntanO 18:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@AntanO, sorry but I am seriously not finding anything problematic. Filing SPI cases is legit but it is necessary to prove what you are filing the request for. Behavioral evidence is a thing but afaics on your talk page and on the CU requests linked, you have been asked to provide evidence and you failed to comply. In such a case, I would personally advise not to file any CU requests until you have a valid evidence that you can express. You are complaining for @Elcobbola not assuming good faith but you at the same accuse them Are you trying to save socks and while targeting me? If you have any hatred, just bring it and we will deal. This is weird. If I find someone and even if it is me, submitting evidence-less SPI's, I would really deem it as non-constructive, and something that does not help Commons grow. If you believe someone is a sockpuppet, express the evidence correctly before you ask for a CU check because CU check's aren't/can't be performed without those necessary evidences. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
My comment to AntanO speaks for itself. AntanO has, despite warnings, repeatedly filed RFCUs without appropriate evidence, which is an unambiguous failure to assume good faith. The compliant here, without seeking discussion with me first, is disingenuous nonsense. Эlcobbola talk 18:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
@TheAafi: Are you saying user Elcobbola had AGF on me? Do you think I am problematic? Have you seen my other CU that passes through? @Elcobbola: why should I discuss first with you since you already label me as 'problematic person' and I have seen some of you harsh discussion which is disingenuous nonsense? BTW, some of my questions are unanswered. I hope other admin would help on these. --AntanO 19:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
@AntanO, I am not telling that you are problematic and nor do I think @Elcobbola has made any big mistake. You were already asked in a couple of SPI's to provide evidence for example in Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vijayakumar143. Given several of these SPI's without a required evidence, I feel @Elcobbola was right in issuing a warning. This does not mean that they disregarded AGF. Please let me know what I have missed. A good remedy to this would be that whenever you file an SPI, you include relevant diffs/evidence, from Commons, or any other wiki, to help a CU's check easy. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
You just ignore some of my points and questions. If you are genuinely want to help, you should see what are my points. And, how can I response to declined CU? Do you get my point? AntanO 19:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

How these were accepted for CU?

Here, I did not give mandatory evidence. --AntanO 19:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

As someone with "11+ years with 80,000+ edits, and [...] a sysop in a Wiki", you would be expected to know this is w:WP:OTHERSTUFF. Further, that a request was fulfilled ≠ evidence was provided. Verily, one of several reasons your complaint is disingenuous piffle is that you ignored reference to my fulfilment of part of your most recent request with an explicit explanation of why I did so despite you failing to provide the necessary evidence. Those were no different. COM:AGF--which, like COM:RFCU, you appear not to have read--is not an empty slogan, but a defined condition of "assume good faith for the intentions of others" (underline added). I've made no comment on your intent (tellingly, as always, you've provided no diffs); verily, you clearly seem to believe you're reporting sockpuppets. You have, however, ignored over and over and over again the requirement to provide evidence. This is a requirement of both COM:RFCU and w:CheckUser policy. COM:BP is clear that "blocks are a last resort for behaviour that has the potential to damage Commons or disrupt its collegial atmosphere" (underline added) This is precisely what accusing others of sockpuppetry without evidence is, and you have been doing it for years without adjusting behaviour in response to ample, repeated notice. The utter lack of clue for someone with "11+ years with 80,000+ edits, and [...] a sysop in a Wiki" to say "Are you trying to save socks and while targeting me?" while complaining about an illusory AGF failure is remarkable, and precisely why a block was referenced. Эlcobbola talk 19:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  • @AntanO: Some of these cases may just be that the CU was familiar with the sock. Some of these folks can be spotted from a mile away. If I find somebody on any project (especially cross-project) singularly obsessed with the Cambodian New Year, or hoaxes related to Mario/Sonic crossovers, you don't necessarily need a CU to tell who they are. But if you do need a CU, you are generally expected to provide more of a rational than saying they did "some particular" thing that made you suspicious.
The CU tools are pretty tightly guarded, and we don't have that many of them, so their time is limited. GMGtalk 20:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems you ignore some facts or not like to talk. Therefore, I make it simple and expect response from other admins too.

  • What is mandatory evidence? I do not find in CU or RFCU. Can you give me link to such Commons' guideline/policy?
  • An example: Here I did not give reference / evidence / diffs. But, User elcobbola did CU. Therefore, I came to conclusion that elcobbola has good understanding of my intention. Why did you run CU without reference / evidence / diffs? Is it per guideline/policy? Why double stand? --AntanO 03:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
@AntanO, as I said, sometimes behavioral evidence hints and is helpful which is what you did in this case i.e. telling the CU that how that user was similar to the previous user: Uploading same type of media after block. COM:CHECK explicitly says that Evidence is required. When you request a check, you must include a rationale that demonstrates (e.g., by including diffs) what the disruption to the project is, and why you believe the accounts are related. This is something you missed telling in one of the requests stating just These users are engaged in some particular article related images. These images already deleted, when you were supposed to tell which specific article was that, what are these relevant images, and why you suspect socking. Evidence is always not diffs, it could be a rationale or an argument to produce your case on why you believe there's socking going around. ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
@AntanO: the fact that someone followed up on a few requests for checkuser that weren't quite as they should be does not mean that you have a standing exemption from making such requests correctly, or that no one should tell you to do it right. - Jmabel ! talk 05:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

All seem 'own interpretations' and instance explanations. You interpretations are NOT in Commons' guideline/policy? I just hear now. Do we want to hear interpretations before do anything here in Commons? Here user Elcobbola Declined, justified and warned me on my talk page. Why can't he/she ask me reference / evidence / diffs? Why such hurry? --AntanO 08:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@AntanO: You asked for a checkuser on a longstanding contributor without presenting evidence. Someone told you (correctly) that was an inappropriate thing to do. You didn't like their tone. So you are here, wanting some sort of censure of their tone, which it should by now be clear that you are not going to get, and still not really owning up to the fact that you got anything wrong. And now, I'm sure, you won't like my tone. You say you are an admin on another wiki. Fine. Then you should appreciate that at this point, all you are doing by continuing this thread is venting and wasting admins' time responding to you. - Jmabel ! talk 14:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Do you have any problem to understand my point(s)? I repeat last point "Why user Elcobbola Declined, justified and warned me without ask me to submit evidence? AntanO 17:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Simple because you have been continuously asked in previous cases to submit more information and you haven't responded back. Declining a CU request because of missing evidence is "legitimate" and "justified". You were warned because you continuously did not present evidences in your SPIs. It would have you been better for you to learn and adapt, submit evidences in SPIs, instead of creating this vicious thread. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I would also like to tell you that it is legitimate to decline a CU check if a CU feels that the provided evidence does not match the standard and is not adequate enough to make the case. You should read more about the checkusers policy. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
(Except one that I skipped) user Elcobbola declined previous CU before I response? This is 2nd time? Why can't the user ask and then declined if I/any user failed to response? AntanO 18:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
It is possible that Elcobbola should have been more gentle in what he wrote, and possible that blocking was an excessive threat formaking checkuser requests without presenting evidence. It is certain that AntanO made no effort to sort any of this out with Elcobbola before bringing this to the Administrator's noticeboard, and it is certain that AntanO has been making checkuser requests without presenting evidence. Antan0, if you stop making checkuser requests without presenting evidence, then presumably it becomes moot what Elcobbola might do if you keep doing this.
No administrative action in order at this time; that's what this page is for, and I think we should close this thread.- Jmabel ! talk 18:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Read my last response to user The Aafī. I am happy to give evidence, but how can I response once if it declined? AntanO 18:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
@AntanO, the evidence needs to be presented when you make the SPI case. In any case, if there is no evidence, a CU request is to be declined. For the specific case, I suggest you talk with @Elcobbola in a very calm and friendly manner and share your findings. I hope this helps. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
//if there is no evidence, a CU request is to be declined// Is it so? Is it in guideline? Can you show me? What is wrong to ask evidence than 'declined'? I already talked and tone was harsh and it is good talk with the help of others. AntanO 18:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The relevant passage is quoted above (Evidence is required…"). Perhaps you should go back and read it rather than continuing to complain in a harsh tone about others's harsh tone. - Jmabel ! talk 18:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Evidence is required, but it doesn't say to decline. Do you want me to shut up and accept all without questioning including own interpretation that not in Commons's guidline? AntanO 18:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
a CU check request is not a "Speedy deletion request". You are seriously not taking the point. COM:CHECK says it clearly Requests to run a check without evidence or with ambiguous reasoning will result in delays or the request not being investigated.. It is up to a CU about how they find the SPI filer's reasoning. There is no one doing own interpretation but it is you who is not ready to fix a mistake that you have been committing again and again, and when directed to fix, you have started seriously a very much vicious thread. You could have resolved this personally with @Elcobbola but unfortunately you have not. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Do you read my replies or just write without order? I don't wanna repeat what I have said. BTW, I was talked with this user in 2020 and I have seen user's discussions which seems to annoying. AntanO 19:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Let's take a look here. I am completely uninvolved in this discussion so far, or in any of the sock-sets as far as I know. First, your concern about having CU requests be denied when you don't follow the instructions for filing has been well answered, including by citing specific CU guideline. Continuing to ask the same question will continue to get the same answer (I would also give the same answer and cite the same guidelines). Continuing to do something you are asked not to do, or thinking you could automatically get exceptions to our policies or guidelines, is not going to get you what you want. The fact that you got a stern warning about it is completely reasonable, especially because it contained specific information about how your behavior was disruptive in several ways. What specific things are remaining un-answered? DMacks (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Let's make it simple.
  • This CU request was made without following CU guideline, but accepted
  • Last CU request was made without following CU guideline, but declined
AntanO 04:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
You have been told repeatedly that CUs might have information about a situation even without you telling them. The guideline does not require that they decline if you do not provide evidence. You have been told repeatedly that CUs can decline if you do not provide evidence. They are not required to act without it. Given that's all you have, we're done here. DMacks (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
//CUs might have information about a situation even without you telling them// Is (situation) it in guideline? How can a user act on this "situation"? Isn't confusing? AntanO 05:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
@AntanO: you say you are an admin on another wiki. I presume you sometimes have a situation where someone gives a fragmentary report, or asks an incoherent question, or such, and you can still work out what is going on and act on it appropriately. E.g. someone asks, without context, "why were my edits deleted" and provides no link to anything, but you can quickly see what of theirs was just rolled back and give them an answer, so you do it. Or someone goes, "A looks like a sockpuppet of B" and you look, and A's edits are so obviously bad that it doesn't matter if they are a sockpuppet: they need to be blocked in any case, so you resolve it without bothering to do a sockpuppet investigation. Because as an admin, you try to get things done, not to make petty complaints and ramp up drama. But at some point, if they keep doing that, you call them on it, as you've been called on this by Elcobbola.
Again, to all: No administrative action in order at this time; that's what this page is for, and I think we should close this thread. - Jmabel ! talk 14:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I understand and accept that admins go into such situation. But, the way the user treated is like treating a vandal. I am here to support the project, not to damage. I faced some incident in Commons (but others supported neutrally) and gradually slow my contribution. I don't want give my contribution purely and get bad experience. I wouldn't come here if other Wiki has no connection with Commons.
All admin seem to me not neutral and cover up fellow admin (except you that you were somehow neutral analytical person). This will chase away pure contributor. Look at the replies and it will create moral anger.
BTW, there is lack of connection between CU guidance/policy and admin action. This will confuse users and it may bring complaints. AntanO 11:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The only person confused here is you, AntanO. The only "not neutral" person here is you, AntanO. I will endeavour to be very clear. You have three options going forward: 1) Provide appropriate evidence at future RFCUs (best); 2) If that is not something you're capable of, abstain from filing RFCUs (just okay); or 3) Continue as you have been and be blocked (worst). While I don't consider my warning to you to have been harsh--especially to an experienced user who wastes no time in telling us he's an admin--or even a threat ("may" is not, say, "will" or "shall"), I trust all can see from your participation here why it was entirely fitting. Be grateful CUs (largely me) have gone above and beyond to build cases for you in the past. Stop accusing others of abusing multiple accounts without evidence. Full Stop. Эlcobbola talk 11:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Arbitration? If you use your admin without valid reason, I'd call for de-admin or I'd approach Wikimedia. Full Stop AntanO 03:21, 18 July 2023 (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.

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Prarambh20

Could an admin please tell me what the deal with these photos is Trade (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see any reason deletion. File:Raj Bhavan of Tripura.jpg is small without EXIF, but File:Agartala town Hall-version.jpg is high resolution with EXIF data. Yann (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tojoroy20. Tojoroy20 and Prarambh20 are the same user. Yann (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
That helps a bit to explain my confusion, but were any of these files duplicates of those deleted at the DR you've just linked? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Files already restored. I closed the DR. Yann (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Restore category Category:Zhezhava sanctuary

Category:Zhezhava sanctuary Микола Василечко (talk) 06:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 09:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Merging two files

Hello! I've noticed these two files are the same pictures:

Can someone please merge them together? Thanks in advance -- Titlutin (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done @Titlutin, in the future please use {{Duplicate}}. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you @AntiCompositeNumber, I didn't know this template. --Titlutin (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Need an admin to move image

Could somebody please move File:American Football House (corrected).jpg to File:American Football House.jpg for me? I did the requested perspective correction, but can't upload it back to the same title because I'm not an admin on Commons. There's a bit of time urgency here, since this is going to be on the main page of enwiki in a few hours as part of en:Template:Did you know/Queue/6. Thanks. RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith I would call that a significant change that should not be overwritten. I would suggest using the alternate image. The bot should protect it within 10 minutes of it being changed in the queue. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
OK, done, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Unattended deletion requests

Three deletion requests for voice files uploaded by me have been left unattended for almost two months.

I'm unsure if this is because I made errors in complying with the standard deletion request, but whatever the case, I hope for assistance here if this is the right place to ask. These files are from C-SPAN website, where coverage of floor activity of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate is in the public domain (thus available for Commons), but coverage of hearings is not. This is why I asked for deletion of these files in relation to copyright.

However, these hearings on the Iran-Contra affair were filmed in 1987, which may qualify them for the Template:PD-US-1978-89 (I don't see any registers for these on the U.S. Copyright Office website) - but I can't be sure until the deletion requests receive outside input. Hopefully these files qualify under the template, so they can be kept. Since I can't remove the requests without them being closed, another reason to ask for help here. Many thanks.

On Commons:Help desk, according to a commenter, since I was the only one to comment on these deletion pages, these files should be non-controversial. SuperWIKI (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  • You didn't make any errors in how you reported on it. No one has had further comments. This happens. DRs sometimes take a while. There are a lot of them. I imagine no one has seen any urgency in dealing with these. {{PD-US-1978-89}} would probably be safe. - Jmabel ! talk 02:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

User seems very confused about Commons

Similarly to this thread, Michael Kalmeyer (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is fundamentally confused about what we're doing here and is using Commons for a resume hosting service. I think this is a NOTHERE kind of situation, but 1.) I want to try to give an admin who maybe wants to take on a project the option to reach out to him and 2.) while his English seems very fine, he's evidently Turkish, so maybe somewhere here can try to communicate more effectively in his native language. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done I sent a COM:SCOPE message, and deleted the out-of-scope personal image. Yann (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Surya7902

Surya7902 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

I am an administrator on English Wikipedia. It has come to my attention that Surya7902 is uploading images that they found on Twitter, YouTube and Instagram. A few they claim as their own work. Please do what needs to be done. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, Mdaniels5757. Cullen328 (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Mass rollback of SDC by Jeison666a

Jeison666a (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Please rollback recent edits by User:Jeison666a, which have added junk "depicts" statements to a large number of images. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, everything reverted. Yann (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Copyupload-allowed-domains

Hi, MediaWiki talk:Copyupload-allowed-domains have multiple edit requests pending (including mine). Page can be edited only by admins so i will notify it here that it could use some love and care. Thanks. :) --Zache (talk) 02:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm awaiting two replies, but the rest are handled now. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
thank you very much. -- Zache (talk) 02:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Block request

Hello, I noticed such a vandal. Could the block be in place? --Kanasalaatti (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. --A.Savin 11:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Armen888

Загрузки / Downloads [20]

100 % загрузок - ложные сведения об авторе и лицензии, 100 % Copyvio. -- Tomasina (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@User:Armen888 Please do not remove this section, as you did previously. Feel free to respond or ask questions, however. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
ложь, я учусь на своих ошибках и по этому уже поставил сылки авторов на многие изображения которые я опубликовал, а так называемые ложные сведения это не ложные сведения а правда на каторую иногда Википедия не обращает внимания Armen888 (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

mass delete

All of these files uploaded by this user can be mass deleted: Special:ListFiles/Ölümsüz Sözler

all are copyvios, taken from net, not "own works". Too many to add speedy delete tag one by one. Tehonk (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done indef-blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 16:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Is there someone here who reads and writes Turkish and can communicate with this person (User:Ölümsüz Sözler)? They are obviously very confused, and possibly well-intentioned. They messaged me (in Turkish) at, of all places, https://tr.wikiquote.org/wiki/Kullanıcı_mesaj:Jmabel. Unsurprisingly, I've never been active on the Turkish-language Wikiquote! The message: "Kişi Resmi atarken hata veriyor. Resim yüklerken engelleme çıkıyor bunu nasıl düzeltirim. Teşekkürler." In short, they can tell that they've been blocked from uploading images, but it looks like they haven't a clue why. Again, if this is going to be sorted out, it will require someone who can read and write Turkish. If you are taking on communicating with this user, please say so here so that we don't waste multiple people's efforts. And you know an admin or experienced user who reads and writes Turkish, please ping them to ask if they will take this on. Thanks in advance. - Jmabel ! talk 01:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I made an incorrect page move, please undo

I was working too fast, I moved a file from a perfectly appropriate name to File:Portland mayor Terry Schrunk in Germany in 1965.jpg. (I intended to move the cropped version of this file, not the main file.) Could an administrator please undo? I don't believe I can, because the original file name is now a redirect, and probably needs to be deleted before the file is moved back. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Please revert all my edits

All of my edits on Commons are wrong, I deleted Categories front files and I thought the user added them is a vandalism accou. But i was wrong, please revert my edits (they are about 20) thanks. Zedl (talk) 10:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Andy Dingley (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Empty files

Can someone delete all the empty files here?, of course i wont tag it all by hand. Notrealname1234 (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I nominated the files for deletion. ✓ Done Notrealname1234 (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Page with corrupted image file to delete

Hello. I had a problem with an image file uploaded yesterday: File:Sabine Houdon, âgé de dix mois - Jean Antoine Houdon - Musée du Louvre Sculptures RF 2452.jpg. I tried new upload on the same page without success. Finally I made a new upload with quasi similar file: File:Sabine Houdon, âgée de dix mois - Jean Antoine Houdon - Musée du Louvre Sculptures RF 2452 - photo 2.jpg and it worked. So the first page could be deleted. As I don't have the right to delete, can someone delete the page with corrupted file? Best regards Shonagon (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Nothing corrupted, but empty page. Yann (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Holocaust denial and antisemitism from User:Raquel Baranow

User:Raquel Baranow was previously sitebanned from the English Wikipedia under en:WP:NONAZIS following recommendation by Jimbo Wales to be permanently banned. This ban was the result of Raquel's open advocacy of Holocaust denialism. Raquel's Wikimedia Commons userpage is currently full of antisemitic imagery and Holocaust denialism. Even more egregious examples can be found on Raquel's English Wikipedia sandbox. Freedom4U (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I've been reading about this since since F4U brought it up on the Wikimedia Discord, and I gotta say, if Jimbo is advocating for a permanent ban, then you must've done something horrible. They're very much violating WP:NONAZIS still. And don't get me started on the scar pictures, but that's mostly just me hating unlabeled gore. They should not only be banned from Commons, but also globally locked so they don't get to push Nazi propaganda on other projects. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 05:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I blocked the user and deleted the user page. We should also review the edits and uploads. GPSLeo (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done? I declined unblock request and looked last twenty or so edits without finding bad ones. Taivo (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I think one or two more admins should have a look at the deleted user page if this justifies an infinite block. We should not take the enwiki behavior into account here and leave this to a decision on a global lock/ban. The content and discussion behavior outside of the deleted user page seems okay. GPSLeo (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
So, as long as she is just a nazi in her own user space, that's ok? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
That would not be okay. I am just unsure about the content on the page. In an other case we had a discussion whether „Files I like“ is just a collection of files illustrating the topic or if the user wants to show support to the racist message in the content. GPSLeo (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Third opinion. I for myself surely don't like any kind of conspiracy theories, and Holocaust denial is undoubtedly amongst the nastiest ones. However, if we follow en:WP:NONAZIS we should do it consequently and without double standards, that means, all the public supporters of Russian fascism (in other words, supporters of Putin and Russian invasion of Ukraine) should be indef'ed too, exactly for the same reason. The fact is, however, that at the moment there is no consensus to block them, and on Russian Wikipedia about every second one is either fascist, or fascism supporter, or conformist at the very least; not few of them active on Commons too and at least one is admin on Commons too. Of course me (as anti-fascist) would strong support indef blocks for this reason, but IMHO only then we should block someone for conspirology on userpage, if that's the only reason. Regarding their user page contents, I think the deletion is fine. --A.Savin 11:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
    I don't think it's productive or necessary to make assessments based on specific ideologies, doctrines, or groups (Nazism, Putinism, etc.) We need only assess a user's edits against policy; for example, per COM:BP: "blocks are a last resort for behaviour that has the potential to damage Commons or disrupt its collegial atmosphere" (underline added) and "Accounts and IP addresses which are used primarily to create a hostile environment for another user may be blocked" (underline added). So the question is not whether one supports fascism (which is not the same as Nazism, it bears mentioning) or any other nonsense, but whether such support is done in a manner that disrupts the collegial atmosphere or creates a hostile environment. Эlcobbola talk 12:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
    It's already (hopefully) perfect consensus here to ban users who publicly wish an other user death. I don't think this should be treated any different in case of those who wish a whole ethnic and/or religious group death, be it otherwise an author of 100 featured WP articles and/or 200 Featured pictures on Commons. --A.Savin 23:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
    I don't see how this is responsive to my comment. To "publicly wish an other user death" is unambiguously disruption of a collegial atmosphere and creation of a hostile environment, as is the same wish for "whole ethnic and/or religious group." Эlcobbola talk 23:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
    @A.Saven: How Putin's fascism distinctly worse than any other imperial warmonger? Would you block people who supported George Bush and his illegal invasion of Iraq? Ovskonna (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
    Possible. --A.Savin 12:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Since she's now been blocked here as well, I went ahead and deleted her en.wp sandbox. If there's an appetite to run this up the chain for a global ban or an office ban, the stewards/office staff can still see everything. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Obviously WP policy is not COM policy. But, I'm inclined to endorse the block and deletion. I don't want to get into outing on sites other than WM projects...but geez. GMGtalk 15:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I took a look at this user's uploads out of curiosity and there are a bunch of charts and tables concerned with populations and ethnic makeups of the United States. There are sources from some of the data, but I'm unclear if her renderings are accurate or are being used in some way to persuade or advocate for racist ideas/actions. Is there anyone available to review these charts and tables? --William Graham (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment @GPSLeo: You've presently blocked the user indefinitely for "intimidation/harassment". I'm having a hard time following the diffs by diving in myself—would you be willing to provide the diffs in which she harassed and/or intimidated users on Commons, for posterity sake? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
    • While GPSLeo will have to speak for himself, my experience was of someone who was trolling in various ways to get anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, and Holocaust-denialist material into Commons, and to draw attention to that material. I think in and of itself that was enough basis for a block. E.g. the now-deleted File:First They Came for the Nazis… but I was Not a Nazi.jpg. Red-tailed hawk, if you want, I can provide you with a copy of that and probably some other relevant materials (limited mainly by how much time I'm willing to put into this); email me if you want it. I had thought of pushing for a block for that alone, but at the time chose not to rise to the bait. - Jmabel ! talk 03:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
      I don't think they're trolling; they seem to be remarkably forthright about what they believe. That being said, Commons isn't a dumping ground for one's own fringe political ideology, but instead is an educational resource. But if we're blocking the individual for what amount to repeated COM:SCOPE issues related to promotion of a set of particularly unsavory views, then the block summary should reflect that rather than saying that they were harassing individuals on Commons. My concern is that the block summary doesn't really reflect the conversation here, even if the block is justified by some other rationale. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
    It is hard to provide a specific diff. It was the combination of quotes and files on the user page with over 200 edits. I was willing to give a second chance but then there was this [21] comment on a discord sever conspiracy followed by these comments [22]. GPSLeo (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

User:VladoubidoOo has unwittingly uploaded a lot of duplicates

I just left a message to VladoubidoOo (talk · contribs) because I noticed that he has been uploading myriads of paintings on Commons using (involuntarily) a very clumsy method. As a source, he's simply indicating "Google" (which is not an actual source, just a search engine), and as a category, simply "paintings by XX". The result is that a lot of identical files are now twice on Commons, once in a precise category for the painting and once in a vague category for the painting's creator. This message is more or less FYI, because I don't know if a mass deletion should be requested, or what other method there may be to put a bit more order in the categories again. Edelseider (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Edelseider: You can tag these files with the "no source" template. Yann (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
@Yann: thank you, that's a good idea - only that there are really many, many files. Couldn't some bot do this? The upload comment is always "Uploaded a work by [painter] from Google with UploadWizard". If a bot is programmed to tag all the files with that sentence, nobody would break a sweat. :) Edelseider (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
@Edelseider: There is a gadget for that, see Help:VisualFileChange.js. Yann (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
@Yann: thank you, I will try this out, I hope I will succeed! Edelseider (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
  • We can delete duplicates, but we shouldn't be stacking deletion nominations. There should be a speedy or a normal deletion nomination, not both, and if someone removes the speedy it should not be restored. Everyone agrees the images are in the public domain. They need attribution, not speedy deletion. --RAN (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Dubious Copyright/Licensing on Uploads by Chasekanaly

Chasekanaly has uploaded three images to Commons for use on English Wikipedia, all of which they have tagged as "Own Work" and released under CC-BY-SA 4.0. These images are:

It seems extremely unlikely Chasekanaly holds the copyright to any of these works, let alone all of them. I'm not super familiar with Commons processes so apologies if this is the wrong place to report this, but I was hoping a Commons admin (or ANB watcher) would be able to help. Dylnuge (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Gryffindorius12

Hi user:Gestumblindi, user:D-Kuru, user:Red-tailed hawk and user:Rosenzweig u all got an Mail regardinng to the user Gryffindorius12 (no link so the user doesen't get a notification). I also got an e-mail to restore some files. What should we do wiht him? Check User?--Sanandros (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The user just asked me if I could restore files. Even this user has made some contributions and uploaded some files, there are no deleted contributions by this user so far (so I wouldn't even know what to undelete). The user also deleted our entry and the link to Commons:Undeletion requests so I guess that all required information was provided. If this user wants anything in particular they know how to use the talk page and how to contact others. So it would leave it at that point for now. --D-Kuru (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Something strange seems to be going on here, see also the first removed messages by Red-tailed hawk and Rosenzweig on Gryffindorius12's talk page... also, the user seems to be versed in Commons lingo, using the term "LTA", which is uncommon for an account that's only one month old (and, also a bit strange, created on Japanese Wikipedia, but no edits there). I wonder what they're up to. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
This is A3cb1. RBI. Эlcobbola talk 19:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: should we do some check user? With which argument?--Sanandros (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm a checkuser--it's been checked. The behaviour is a duck quacking into a megaphone for those familiar with this LTA, but you can look at Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/A3cb1 for historical examples. Attempting w:WP:PROXYING is also an A3cb1 hallmark, and you can compare the name Gryffindorius12 to previous socks Gryffinbot, Hopytrus12, etc. Эlcobbola talk 20:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't like it if check users are active on their own. Because that could lead to miss use of the tools. I don't want to say that you do that, but there should be some checks and balances. I know on the other side we don't have enaugh people who are doing the diffrent jobs.--Sanandros (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the practise of all CUs on all projects I am aware of, and always has been. We follow policy, not personal opinion ("I don't like it"). Эlcobbola talk 21:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
As far as I know, gemran CUs are only active on request. Because you need to give a reason why to interfere in the data of somebody else, and that hould be written down. Furthermore pages of CU Requests have a No Index flag, so search engines can't find the page so easly.--Sanandros (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I note that a checkuser must enter a reason to check someone, and the reason is available to other CUs and the Ombuds Commission. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
German-language Wikipedia has very strict rules for CUs which indeed may act there only under certain defined circumstances on request (and every request is documented at de:Wikipedia:Checkuser/Anfragen/Archiv), never on their own, which is all certainly in the context of Germany's (and other German-speaking) countries strict approach to data protection, but AFAIK, it's handled a bit more loosely in other projects. Gestumblindi (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
One day dewiki will choke on their pile of rules. Filing a CU request takes 1 hour on dewiki, here on Commons 1 minute. --Achim55 (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Back to the topic: Some years ago we have had this Rfc, but nevertheless there are deletions based on 'uploaded by a blocked user' which IMO is nonsense if the files' copyrights have expired. To circumvent discussions I now and then re-uploaded files like this one instead of undeleting it. --Achim55 (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

User rights update

Autoconfirmed User:Doc Taxon does a lot of very useful work, and he is experienced with template creation and editing. Sometimes he cannot do needed work because he has not yet the template editor rights. I recommend to upgrade his rights to the TE level. -- sarang♥사랑 (TE) 08:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I promise not to get into mischief with it. – Doc Taxon • Talk • 14:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

No problem granting this request, I think, as Doc Taxon is also a respected user, oversighter, administrator and importer in German-language Wikipedia, I don't see any potential issue with granting this right, so I've done it, though the proper place for this request would have been Commons:Requests_for_rights#Template_editor - but let's not be too bureaucratic ;-) Gestumblindi (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, – Doc Taxon • Talk • 15:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Uploads by blocked user

Someone asked me if I could undelete a file uploaded by a blocked user (Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/A3cb1) .

A similar file File:Reginald Baliol Brett, 2nd Viscount Esher.png was not done.

I know other admins have been asked similar questions.

I can't find the original reason why the user was blocked. But according to User talk:A3cb1 it seems that the reason was poor sourcing/licensing and sockpuppetry per Magog.

Commons is not Wikipedia so we should judge people by their edits on Commons. And the user do not have many edits on Commons prior to the original block. But there seems to be a lot of socks. I have not checked those edits so I do not know if those edits are good or not.

Anyway what should we do? Unblock? Keep blocked but restore good files? Keep blocked and deny undeletion?

The goal of Commons is to host free files so on one hand I would like to restore/keep files that are known to be free (notable paintings). And user seems to be very willing to contribute to Commons.

But on the other hand it would make the block ineffective if we restore files.

If user do not understand copyright or if user harass someone then I think an indef block is the right thing. If user learned something then I believe in giving users a chance. According to Commons:Blocking policy secondary accounts are blocked indef but primary account may or may not be subject to new or extended blocks depending on the circumstances. So our policy allow editors to return if there is reason to believe they will not make disruptive edits or upload copyvios.

The account is globally locked so we have to involve a steward if we are willing to allow user to edit again on Commons.

@Krd, Yann, Túrelio, Magog the Ogre, and Ruthven: (known to have been involved earlier). --MGA73 (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Although there is no policy, the consensus between admins is that an undeletion request about files uploaded by A3cb1 and their socks can be filled up by any user in good standing. Yann (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
@Yann: Thank you. Not a native English speaker so I have to ask what "filled up" means :-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
@MGA73: An undeletion can be requested by any any user in good standing (i.e. never blocked, etc.). Yann (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
@MGA73 and Yann: "Filled out" would be more correct. - Jmabel ! talk 23:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
@MGA73 The user was blocked on Commons for these very same reasons. Creating > 100 socks, repeatedly uploading copyvios and harassing by repeated requests the users is a valid reason to block undef.
Mind that if a undeletion request is made because of some external pressure, it is a case of meatpuppetry, and should be dealt with accordingly. Ruthven (msg) 12:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
@Ruthven: User would not create 100 socks if main account was not blocked. So if we unblock we solve the problem with socks and we no longer have to worry about them. As I understand it the main reason for the block was uploading copyvios. If user now have learned copyright then the original reason for the original block no longer exist. The discussion about an unblock died User_talk:A3cb1#Path_to_unblocking. So question is if we can solve this by giving user the standard offer (6 months) as originally suggested. (User have proven to be very keen on working on Commons) --MGA73 (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
@MGA73 It would not have been blocked in the first place if it wouldn't have uploaded files in copyvio and/or incorrectly licensed. Besides, creating socks is against the guidelines I think... Then, something as a standard offer has been done, but never respected. However, now the user is globally locked, so there are projects where the en.wikipedia standard offer doesn't exist. It is a LTA, we don't want to spend more time on this, and he will create a new sock tomorrow here or on another wiki. Ruthven (msg) 13:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
@Ruthven: I agree this is not Wikipedia. So we should judge the user by what the user does here and by our own policy. Correct that it was the copyvios that was the reason for the block in the first place. But standard practice is that user can request an unblock and if admins trust user learned copyright then the user can be unblocked.
Creating socks is against the policy and they get blocked. But as I wrote above Commons policy is to block the socks and treat the main account by ordenary standards. So following that user can request an unblock and it can be granted if we have reason to think user learned and will not upload more copyvios.
To me it seems that the reason for the blocks is no longer copyvios but socks.
If we do not want to spend time on the user then why keep blocking? Then why not let the socks be as long as they do not upload copyvios and save the time? The problem is that someone have to spend time on the user.
If we know who the user is then it is easier to monitor and check for copyvios. Perhaps that would save us time in the long run? --MGA73 (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
@MGA73 It is untrue. As a3cb1 keeps uploading again and again the same files, he does the same with the copyviols. Less than a couple of months ago, I've again deleted photos of recent artworks (that he wants to insert in Wikipedia, thus he uploads them regardless). It sounds foolish to even consider unblocking him and not blocking him on sight. Ruthven (msg) 16:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
@Ruthven: All copyvios should be deleted. The reason for this post is because some century-old paintings were also deleted. If it is about URAA then I think there is an old descision not to delete if URAA is the only reason. --MGA73 (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Quoting myself from the RfC discussion: An upload by a sock that has to be deleted and another day the same upload by a non-sock that has to be kept is patent nonsense. I'm thinking about automated re-uploading of files like done here or there if there is no consensus of undeleting such uploads of century-old paintings. --Achim55 (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Achim55: Thank you for the link - I had not seed that RfC. The concensus on that page was Block/ban evasion/sockpuppetry on its own is not a valid reason to delete media or reject a request for undeletion. yet the file I mentioned above was deleted with the reason "created by abuser" and the undeletion above was not done because "uploaded by an LTA".
I think that century-old paintings should be restored. So if you notice any of those I would support an undeletion. I have no idea how many files that is. Is it 100? 1,000? --MGA73 (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
@MGA73: If you want to request undeletion of these files, be welcome. But please do it with your own rationale, not because they were some (public domain) LTA's uploads. Yann (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
They were deleted because the were uploaded by an LTA (against concensus) and the undeletion was denied because it was uploaded by an LTA (agains concensus). I think that should all be undeleted because they are usable old PD paintings. I do not care if files are uploaded by an LTA or not. I care about if they are free and usable. --MGA73 (talk) 11:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

What to do on Falk2 block evasion

User:Falk2 is actively editing as IP and uploads files through a Bot using the dewiki. I did not see any problematic edits but this is a very obvious block evasion. There are even creations of new user categories Category:Falk2/Abzw Zangenberg. What should we do on this? Should we block all file imports with Falk2 as author and protect all these files from IP edits? GPSLeo (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

He is a hopeless case. I don't know what has to happen that dewiki finally would manage to indef him, but actually I support any further sanction. It's not like we need his photos at any price. --A.Savin 13:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Whitelist Tai Ahom alphabet

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Titleblacklist&oldid=788346544#Whitelist_Tai_Ahom_alphabet

could someone plz take a look at this asap, whether or not to approve it? it affects a minority language. RZuo (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Working on this there. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Interface admins: Please, update gadget

MediaWiki:Gadget-LargerGallery.js needs an update, confer my request.

And see also at technical Village pump: How to deal with seemingly unused gadgets needing an update. — Speravir – 23:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

This has been now done by Raymond--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
No, Ymblanter. Raymond’s edit from 25th of July was for another request where only the new class name was added. Afterwards I noticed the gadget still did not work and investigated the reason(s). — Speravir – 21:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
But now thankfully Lucas Werkmeister has done the work. — Speravir – 23:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Moving category

Hi. I am trying to move a cat using COM:CDC. I have put in what needs to be done and then tried to run it. Can someone please confirm I am doing this correctly? TIA Gbawden (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

You mean here?
The command should on the format {{move cat|old category|new category|reason=give reason here|user={{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}. Your command missed reason= and user=. Yann (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks doh Gbawden (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Hide previous version

Please hide a previous version of File:Дозвіл на вільне використання газети Отчий поріг.jpg as it contains personal data, and please keep alive the current version. Perohanych (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. --A.Savin 12:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/163.47.184.206 acting against consensus

Discussion is ongoing and does not look like it will favor a rename. This IP is mass moving files and while it's easy for me to use Cat-a-Lot to move them back, it would be better if this interruption just didn't happen. Raising now in case any admins want to intervene on talk or issue a block to stop potentially disruptive back-and-forth editing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Watch this user

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sum1x%27ll 維基小霸王 (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block, all reverted. Taivo (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Two VRT requests

Hello! If you have access to the commons VRT-queue, would you mind responding to this IPBE and unblock requests? Thank you in advance! Bencemac (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Did the first one, asked for additional info on the second. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! I closed the first one. Bencemac (talk) 07:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Oops, forgot. Thanks! :) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

October 2023 may never happen. Do we document the future?

Maybe the world will end in August or September 2023, anything is possible. Yet Silar (talk · contribs) insists on maintaining filling the category October 2023 in Warsaw with a subcategory that he has created on 4 August 2023 (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Million_Hearts_March&action=history), and which as of now contains only pictures from August 2023. Is that okay by Commons standards, or am I wrong to insist that we don't document the future? There may also be a COI involved because Silar may be part of the campaign of Donald Tusk, but that's only speculation at this point. Edelseider (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Edelseider, category deleted. Kadı Message 12:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Alizadeh Zahra (Hadi Bagheri) socks

Hello; it would appear that Alizadehzahra4036 and Alizadeh.zahra1393 are the same user (based on uploads, and both having the sole purpose of promoting Hadi Bagheri cross-wiki). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 18:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Sock blocked. Yann (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Bad redirection

Please, may you revert the mistake of JuTa (images are different !) (voir aussi la discussion (fr)).   <STyx @ (I promote Geolocation) 12:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

PS: looking his discussion page User talk:JuTa/Archive 61, it seems that this user don't do a good job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by STyx (talk • contribs) 13:00, 3 August 2023‎ (UTC)

The problem was that User:Sarangbot overwrote your original File:Arch dam 12x12 se.svg image with a duplicate of File:Arch dam 12x12 sw.svg. Most likely User:JuTa didn't look at the file history. I'll fix this. - Jmabel ! talk 14:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done - Jmabel ! talk 14:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
ok. Thanks !   <STyx @ (I promote Geolocation) 13:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Traditional specialities guaranteed

Hello, I need help for moving Category:Traditional Specialities Guaranteed of France and Category:Traditional Specialities Guaranteed of Latvia in Category:TSG by country with the name Category:TSG of France and Category:TSG of Latvia. All the other categories in Category:TSG by country are labeled "Category TSG of <nation>" and so are Category:PDO by country and Category:PGI by country.-- Carnby (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Carnby: The usual place to request a clearly uncontroversial category move is User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. I think the instructions there should be self-evident. - Jmabel ! talk 17:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

DR never added to the logs

Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Lingua Libre pronunciation by Lepticed7 needing renaming was never added to the logs so it was never closed, and the logs were deleted. I recreated the logs and added this DR to it but that didn't catch any admin's attention. Would any admin be willing to close this one and redelete the, then, empty logs? I don't kno Jonteemil (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. Abzeronow (talk) 02:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

User:آیت الله محمدتقی پورمحمدی

The user has a name against Commons:Username policy (using a well-known name) and only uploads copyvio pictures of that person. HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Like you, I doubt that they are محمدتقی پورمحمدی, and I do think that it may well be worth dropping a note on their talk page. However, I don't understand Farsi, and that person is an Iranian cleric. @HeminKurdistan: do you happen to have knowledge of Farsi and, if so, would you be willing to leave them a note on their talk page explaining that they need to either e-mail VRT if they are indeed who their username implies them to be, or change it if they are not that person?
I'm not really sure that a block is necessary here; their last contributions to Commons appears to have been in 2017. If they come back to Commons, see your note, and change their username, then I think that this would be resolved. Likewise, if they never come back to Commons (which is probably a fair assumption), a block wouldn't actually be preventing anything. If they come back and continue to upload copyvio without addressing the concern about their username, a block might be warranted at that time, but I don't see a block as being warranted now. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
That's reasonable. I will leave them a message. HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for leaving them a message. I think we can mark this section as resolved. Please let me know if there are any updates. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Sure. Thank you for your help. HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Stalking by Chamaemelum

Chamaemelum is indef blocked on Wikipedia for disruption and was site-banned twice by consensus from over 25 users [25]. The user has also uploaded a lot of copyrighted material onto Wikipedia which is being deleted by admins [26]. The user has been uploading some copyrighted photographs onto Commons which were deleted. Now they are adding incorrect copyright licence tags. On the Wikipedia Fringe Noticeboard there was a discussion last month about Chamaemelum's possible copyvio on Commons. I volunteered to help clean up those photographs. Another user had already tagged the photographs and they were removed.

Chamaemelum is now following me around on Commons submitting images I have uploaded for deletion out of revenge [27], [28]. The same user has also uploaded this template and is putting them on talk-pages of these images that I uploaded [29] which is totally unacceptable behaviour. The same user is also sending me harassing emails.

I have been on Commons since 2019 and have uploaded hundreds of old photographs. As a historian I usually upload photographs published before 1928. Only recently for the first time did I decide to upload images from YouTube. The template they have created and are uploading to talk-pages is unacceptable.

Chamaemelum also blanks their talk-page so you cannot have a conservation with them. This user reeked havoc on Wikipedia and I can see they will do the same here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

They've nominated two images of yours that seem to be taken from non-free Youtube files, and they've uploaded a picture of what a CC label looks like on YouTube, which is hardly unacceptable. I don't see either of those actions as problematic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
This is a user that is banned for disruption and copyright. They have sent me harassing emails blaming me and others for their ban. The [30] template they have created has only been added to two images I uploaded and not any other users images. The image has not been created in good faith, it was made to prove a point, and they created that template only to add to images I uploaded, it is harassment. If the image was being used elsewhere I would understand but it is being used only to target me. This was done in revenge because Chamaemelum was uploading copyrighted photographs that were flagged for deletion. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Just stopping in to clarify here; I've never communicated off-wiki with Psychologist Guy in any capacity, and I've never sent emails to anyone about anything related to a ban. Chamaemelum (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Template:MonumentID

Several editors are changing the default behaviour of Template:MonumentID in a disruptive manner. The issue they are raising does needs resolving, but it needs more work to make the transition than just changing the settings abruptly - see the ongoing discussion at Template_talk:MonumentID#autocat_yes?_no!. I'd appreciate neutral input into this, and perhaps template protection. The template has 73,408 transclusions right now, so edit-warring about it is disruptive. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

You are the one that is being disruptive as you have been warned 6 months ago to the problem that this template and its stupid autocategorization "leaves images already categorized to subcategories in the main category and it is impossible to remove from the main category".
You had months to "make the transition" and yet you did exactly zero and still want to do zero even others have showed you several categories with dozens or hundreds of images hanging in the main category, even when they already have been subcategorized for several years. Tm (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Protected. Mike, although you have the technical ability to bypass the protection, please do not do so. Reach a consensus on the talk page. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
@Mdaniels5757: I was trying to buy more time to solve the problem properly without leaving photos uncategorised, but I think I can work around it a different way, proposed on the talk page. Thanks for the intervention, and I won't bypass the protection. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
This was solved in the end by bot-adding the categories to the files (where they weren't in 3 layers of subcategories or a parent category). Not the ideal solution, but that's the best I could do without having more time to properly solve the issue. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Mike Peel (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

User uploads

Special:ListFiles/TinyPardus Many eligible files without permission Pierpao.lo (listening) 20:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done@Pierpao The most recent ones have been deleted or marked as "without permission". Ruthven (msg) 19:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Protected broken template

Please edit Template_talk:Wikimedia-screenshot#Edit_request_(cat) to allow resolving "diffuse" issue of Category:Wikimedia screenshots. Taylor 49 (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2023

FYI. -- CptViraj (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

208.98.223.102

Please check edits of 208.98.223.102. ŠJů (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked by GPSLeo for 3 days Gbawden (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Request of file rename

Please change the image file name "File:Sta. Joana de Lestonnac.jpg" to other because the person represented in that portrait painting is Saint Jane Frances de Chantal (and not Saint Joan of Lestonnac). Thank you. Anjo Sozinho (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Anjo-sozinho: I'll do this, but this is really not an admin issue. Please, if this comes up in the future, use {{Rename}} on the file page. - Jmabel ! talk 20:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Taylor 49 (talk) 08:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Taylor 49 (talk) 08:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi can someone with the appropriate permissions, respond to the edit protected request, and ideally swap the new version in.. Unless the additional parameter is added, there's no visual difference in appearance, and the sole change for existing uses is the addition of one (hidden) tracking category.

(Context: Since some dedicated contributors uploaded a number of works from IA (or it's flikr stream) a few years ago, I've been lookign over the uploads. Sometimes it seems IA has had works which were not strictly in the public domain or under free licenses. Due to incomplete or misleading metadata, (and in some instance naivety on the part of uploaders) some of those potentially in copyright works have ended up on Commons accidentally. The purpose of the changes to the linking template is allow for a more long-term review of IA sourced items, the tracking category being so that items already examined don't have to be looked at repeatedly, and can be eliminated in queries using PETSCAN and other tools.)

The vast majority of uploads can be retained on Commons, and in most cases the 'reviewing' process would be a simple as checking what files had already been licensed reviewed, and adding the new parameter to {{IA}} template invocation. (Aside: I'd also like to see raw IA links converted over to IA, so that it's only one change if the site changes URL unexpectedly. ) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Any chance you could mention this in a newsletter or noticeboard, so that license reviewers and patrollers are aware of the update?
I wasn't sure where would have the most visibility for the sorts of reviewers concerned.
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Category:Commons protected edit requests backlog

Hi folks, we seem to have gotten a bit of backlog in Category:Commons protected edit requests. Browsing through it I see a lot of things tagged with {{Edit request}} that:

  1. Don't have a clear actionable. I expect text or code to be ready and preferable tested in some sandbox.
  2. Are controversial or no clear consensus have been established. Discussion should happen first and when that's concluded, the template should be added. Not the other way around

You have to go through theses requests to find the ones that can be implemented. It would be nice to work on this backlog together to empty it out. Who wants to help? Multichill (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Closure of CFDs

There are thousands, if not millions, of open COM:CFD discussions awaiting closure. I request the admins and experienced editors to close these discussions. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit to File:Os-lahaina-town-fire.jpg

The page is currently administrator protected (EN Wiki ITN image), so, can an administrator change the source to be: https://www.mauinews.com/news/local-news/2023/08/slideshow-fire-rips-through-lahaina/ (Archived)? The current source is just the archived link, but the main URL is still live, so it should be like that. Thank you! WeatherWriter (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The attribution on that website is "US Civil Air Patrol / County of Maui photo". Are we sure it's a Civil Air Patrol photo (PD-USGov) and not a Hawaii (non-free) photo? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Red-tailed hawk I am not sure. @Viriditas: I wanted to ping you here, given you are the uploader. WeatherWriter (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
@Red-tailed hawk: Side-note from the rest of this discussion, but can you fix the source part of the image, since the original source still exists? WeatherWriter (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, positive. There was some initial confusion because several pilots took similar photos, one of which was the owner of the Air Maui company. This is not that photo, although it looks like at least one media site confused the two photos and mislabeled them. That was my primary concern in the beginning. Why did the Air Maui photos and the US Civil Air Patrol series of images look so similar? Was the same pilot working for both agencies? I looked into that as well and couldn’t confirm a connection. Oddly, I did discover that there was a civil air patrol pilot in a different state with a similar but different name as the private charter company in Maui. That was definitely unexpected. The hypothesis that I discarded was that the two pilots were the same pilot, whose name had been misspelled at some point (in the media or online), and that the one pilot was using his private helicopter in his federal capacity as the patrol. It makes a certain kind of sense that on a small island, someone would wear dual hats. But ultimately I discarded that idea, because this particular pilot is famous for releasing non-free images to the media on Maui, as he did during this wildfire. And I could find no evidence anywhere that the two pilots were one and the same. At best, I concluded that they were entirely different photos by different people and agencies/companies. The County of Maui was given attribution by the media in some cases (but not all) because they helped distribute the photo to the media, but the image was captured by the US Civil Air Patrol. I believe there are also other examples of the County distributing free photos like this over the last week, which they received from the Hawaii National Guard and other federally funded agencies. That doesn’t make the photos non-free, and there are other uses by the media (prior to its use here) that indicated only the Civil Air Patrol attribution, not the County. However, in the interests of accuracy, it would be helpful for others with the relevant tools and expertise to look into this as well. Other eyes on this are appreciated. Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Note, I have some free time to revisit this issue. I've found some interesting things. I will update here as soon as I'm finished. Viriditas (talk) 06:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Update: I decided to revisit this image. I was able to confirm and verify that the image is considered the work of a U.S. Air Force Airman or employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties, which places it in the public domain in the United States. One easy way of verifying this is to look at the use of the photo by the European Pressphoto Agency (EPA Images). They distributed this photo to participating news outlets after the 11th. As their wiki page states, they have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Etienne Laurent is their professional staff photojournalist and is currently in Hawaii documenting the wildfires. It is highly likely you are familiar with their work as it appears everywhere. As part of their extensive Maui wildfires archival photo shoots, EPA Images has also catalogued the photos released by government agencies and has distributed these to news outlets. As of today, their entire archive consists of 327 images of the Maui wildfire event. Of these, there are a total of three images attributed to the US Civil Air Patrol. One of these images has a backstory on the USCAP sites. However, it appears to me that the USCAP home page isn't updated all that much as they have only one other page devoted to the current fires. And, as far as I can tell, EPA Images wasn't able to confirm and upload their own high quality version of the image until August 11.[31] How Maui News and others got their version isn't clear, but it looks like the County of Maui was involved in distributing these images to the news outlets (just a guess, no idea if it is true), which actually makes sense as the USCAP webpage says they were giving their information to the county for review so that an emergency declaration could be declared. On the linked sites, they write "The three Maui Composite Squadron members flew over the hot zones of Pulehu/Kihei and Lahaina for four hours, providing critical information to ground team members." Were these very ground team members in Lahaina taking these photos? We don't know. There are also other confusing attributions around this image. For example, an aggregator site credited the image to "Luigi Spinillo", but that's because he uploaded the image to his Facebook account, where they found it and downloaded it to their site. Spinillo makes it pretty clear in the comments regarding the image, that he has nothing to do with it. There's a few other lines of investigation that I would rather not go too deep into. We don't know who originally released the image to the media between August 8 and 9th because EPA Images didn't get their own high quality version until the 11th (if the publishing data is correct), a version that Wikipedia doesn't currently have, so we can't attribute this to citogenesis. There's also an indication that Oneindia, an online India news portal, got their hands on a large version of the image (a different version than Wikipedia), around the same time. Is it possible that EPA Images was already distributing it earlier than the publishing date, which could have been changed or updated? I don't know. Finally, for the sake of completeness, it is important to realize, that the only people with a working camera in this area at this time were either local citizens who survived the fire and decided to take photos, professional photojournalists like Etienne Laurent, or county or federal employees. At this point, we have no evidence that this photo was made by a local, no evidence it came from a professional photojournalist, scant evidence it originated from the county (although this argument is reasonable since Maui County fire and police were within a relative close distance of the perimeter), and good evidence it came from USCAP (either in the air or from the ground) placing it in the public domain. These lines of evidence supporting this conclusion include the Maui News and other mainstream, local news outlets, as well as the European Pressphoto Agency, which has a reputation for fact checking. Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Awesome. Thank you for following up and looking into this. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
@Red-tailed hawk: I would like to be right, but there are times when we are not. I woke up this morning after writing the above last night, to discover that EPA Images either hid or took down all three images. Here is the Google cache record of at least two of those three images. As I said above, the third image is appropriately identified as USCAP and can be traced directly to them, and there's even a good secondary source for that. Something about the image we are discussing and this one are unusual to me, and I alluded up above that the argument that this image originated with the County is reasonable because fire and police were on the scene. Given that EPA Images has removed these photos after I made the comment (or at least they are no longer viewable, see the cache link), something is amiss. I have once again taken another look. I notice that Honolulu Civil Beat has additional information that I've been unable to find anywhere else. The image in question appears to be dated from a time around Wednesday, Aug 9, 2023 – 3:55 p.m. I was unable to find this general origin date until now. It shows up in this blurb from Civil Beat:
The Civil Air Patrol and the Maui Fire Department flew over areas hit by the fires and determined that more than 271 structures have been impacted, according to a press release from Maui County. About 100 Maui firefighters have been on duty around the clock and the county asked for an additional 20 firefighters from Honolulu along with an incident management team. Four helicopters are making water drops in Lahaina. Two Chinooks, along with four Windward Aviation helicopters, have been battling all three fires with water drops. Three additional helicopters from the Coast Guard and Navy were conducting search and rescue along the West Maui coastline, the press release said. A federal team arrived on Maui and is on the ground in Lahaina to assist with search and rescue efforts there. As of Wednesday afternoon, according to the press release, the Maui Fire Department reported no significant changes for the Lahaina, Upcountry and Pulehu fires. There are no new evacuations. There are no containment numbers at this time, the county said.
So it looks like the photo is related to this press release. I was able to find the original press release here, but there is no photo online, so once again, we have no idea how the photo was originally distributed to the media. Honolulu Civil Beat uses the following caption "Provided: Maui Fire Department/US Civil Air Patrol". They use the same caption for the second image I linked to up above.[32] I do want to highlight the statement that says "A federal team arrived on Maui and is on the ground in Lahaina to assist with search and rescue efforts there". We don't know if Maui County Fire Department or US Civil Air Patrol took the photo, or why they both received credit. However, if you look closely at this and other higher resolution versions, you will see, what I believe appears to be a firefighter walking along the upper left part of the wall. Was it a member of the federal team that took the photo of the firefighter after being escorted by fire officials to the scene? We still don't know. What we do know is that this was a disaster scene involving every conceivable level of government from the county, state, and federal levels. Does this jeopardize the public domain status of this and the second image, given that the attribution is "Maui Fire Department/US Civil Air Patrol"? I would also like to point out, to defend the public domain part of this argument, that a great many of the Hawaii National Guard and FEMA photographs released in the public domain by the DOD, show and describe inter-agency collaboration between the county, state, and federal government. This is substantiated in quite a number of the photos that myself and others have uploaded. However, in all of these images, a federally-funded photographer was behind the camera. So for the two photos in question showing the "Maui Fire Department/US Civil Air Patrol", does the question of who was behind the camera need to be answered? I think we may be looking at a US Civil Air Patrol helicopter that dropped off members of the Fire Dept and possibly other inter-agency members into the disaster area, who then took photos and then got back in and flew away. I know that firefighters often take photos in these situations. Then again, it could very well be the case that a Civil Air Patrol team member took the photo on the ground. This would not be all that unusual given that Maui has an unusually high number of Air Force-related staff due to the presence of the Maui Space Surveillance Complex. Viriditas (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

AI generated photos in Wikipedia?! => Photo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Hawaii_wildfires#/media/File:Os-lahaina-town-fire.jpg is an AI generated photo! Just look at the TREE, are you kidding me?! That same tree I can see on A LOT of photos! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms2chkyBAsA&t=2s Hope you understand a little German! Delete this AI generated photo. This is Fake! P.S.: I want the Wikipedia Staff to respond to this message. This is serious and not a joke. What is happening? What is a wikipedia with fake photos? Double Check the photo, please. But you already know that it is fake. If you don't respond or delete my message: this message is archieved. --TheGoldenRule (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

    • I have no expertise about "hundreds of pictures on the internet" and which might be fakes. I was addressing this particular photo and your comments about it. "Just look at the TREE, are you kidding me?!" You can see "the TREE" over a period of some 10 years in Google street views. Perhaps they don't have trees that look like that where you live, but apparently they do on Maui. Despite the horrible destruction, I was able to identify the location of the photo in a couple of minutes. Lahaina is not a huge city. Any of the "hundreds of pictures on the internet" which are not on Wikimedia Commons are not of concern to Commons. However since you are clearly interested in the topic, I'll suggest you try identifying locations yourself. Wishing you a fruitful search -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

You still did not answer my question. Ok, I trust you if you say this picture is real. But what about the hundreds of pictures that have the same tree in it but the shoots are from different angles... --TheGoldenRule (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

    • Your "question"? This is not social media. This is not a place for discussion of photos that are not on Commons. This is not a place for discussion about "So what about Biden?!". You can find many other places on the internet for such things. If you have a specific question ABOUT WIKIMEDIA COMMONS that needs attention of administrators, ask it here. Otherwise, this is not the place you are looking for. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) TheGoldenRule, I'll be completely honest with you. You are asking the same question over and over again, getting the same answer, and not actually reading what is being said. Here is the answers to your questions: (Q1) Is the image real? (A1) Yes, as explained multiple times and ways in this discussion. (Q2) "What about the hundreds of pictures that have the same tree in it but the shoots are from different angles". (A2) as explained literally in the message your replied to, I quote, You can see "the TREE" over a period of some 10 years in Google street views and the tree seen in the photo appears to be the one visible on google maps street view at about 988 Front Street. Front Street is the most famous and iconic street of Lahaina, so IMO no surprise that it would be seen in distance in multiple photos. I bolded the exact phrase which answers your question. I'm am so confused on how you have missed that phrase, which exactly explains why it is seen multiple ways. Your repeat of the same question is the exact same as if I said "Well, how can the White House be real? I have seen it in multiple photos from different angles!" The tree is on a "the most famous and iconic street of Lahaina", so obviously multiple photographs are taken on the street, which include that tree. Hopefully that fully and completely answers the questions you had. Cheers! WeatherWriter (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protection request for File:Socrates.png

Frequent target for vandalism and spam--Trade (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Convenience link: File:Socrates.png. @Trade: certainly you have been here long enough to know how to form a wikilink for a file. - Jmabel ! talk 01:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Its more of a technical problem with my keyboard Trade (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done - Jmabel ! talk 01:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protection request for File:Doggy style sex.webm

Frequent target for vandalism--Trade (talk) 09:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

Commons_talk:Project_scope#Proposed_change_in_wording.

There is a need for more opinions. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

History merge and redirect

Hello Admins, I hope you're doing well. I would like to request history merge and redirect of File:Rukmini vasanth.jpg into File:Rukmini Vasanth.jpg. Thanks for your consideration. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 05:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Stalking from Chamaemelum

I have raised this issue a few weeks ago but got no admin response [33]. Chamaemelum is a banned Wikipedia user who was blocked for disruption, it was later found that they added loads of copyrighted material to Wikipedia. This user was also uploading copyrighted photographs to Commons (5 images of which have been deleted).

I have written nearly 400 articles on Wikipedia and have uploaded hundreds of historic photographs here. I have never had an issue with any user on Commons. Chamaemelum is now deliberately stalking my editing history here, submitting deletion requests for images I have uploaded or leaving comments on images I have uploaded a year ago [34].

This creepy stalking behaviour is unacceptable. I understand this user may blame me for their Wikipedia ban (which is incorrect because over 25 users voted for their community ban) but there is no valid reason for this user to be doing this kind of creepy stalking to me on here. The same user has sent me harassing emails (which they have obviously denied here).

The following me around on here is not being done in good faith. I raised this issue on this board before especially in response to this image they uploaded [35]. That image has only been put on two images I uploaded. The reason they uploaded that image was to target me and nobody else. Since uploading that License image it has not been put on any other YouTube images. I realise this user has been banned from various Wikis and obviously has nothing to do, but when I log in here I don't expect to keep seeing this user following me around.

I am emailing the WMF about this abuse because it is taking place on and off site, but I would like an admin to get involved here. The user is not following me around in good faith. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment FWIW the 2 deletion requests of your files created by Chamaemelum were OK. Yann (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
You are missing the bigger picture here, those deletions were not made by an experienced or neutral user as this is a user who seems to have a grudge against me for their Wikipedia ban. In regard to the two images that were deleted, they were the only YouTube images that I have ever uploaded. I am a historian and nearly all of the images I have uploaded to Commons for years are from the 1910s, 1920s or 1930s. I am not disputing the deletion of the YouTube images but this wasn't created in good faith by Chamaemelum [36], it was created to target me and no other user. The only images that Chamaemelum used it for was on the two YouTube images I uploaded. They could have placed that license image on hundreds of other images uploaded by different users but it wasn't used for that purpose. It was used to target me and nobody else.
Chamaemelum is banned on Wikipedia and has barely been on Commons for 5 minutes. I have been here since 2019. I want to be left alone but I can see this is going to be a common theme now. Every time I log in here, Chamaemelum is going to be stalking my 4 year+ editing history looking through anything I have uploaded in the past trying desperately to find any mistakes. This is not good faith editing, an experienced user such as myself who has put countless hours into uploading historical images should not have to put up with it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't blame Psychologist Guy for anything, and I hold no grudges with anyone over being banned on enwiki. I am sorry that someone is sending bad emails, but that event is being misdirected towards me. I hope that the WMF is able to confirm this. I'm not quite sure how that works; hopefully they can cross-reference my IP with the emailer's IP.
I did paraphrase too closely (on Tayside children's sleep questionnaire) on enwiki, which was a learning experience for me. I've been much more careful since, both here and on other wikis.
The four uploads of mine that have been deleted have not all been deleted due to copyright. Two uploads I allowed to be deleted out of abundance of caution by not adding a license or deleting a license, as I wasn't 100% sure which license applied. One I G7'd. The remaining one (so about 1% of my uploads) was improperly uploaded due to a mistake on my part (Doreen Bonner image).
Either way, I don't think my deletion proposals of the two mistakenly labeled images is "abuse" or warrants a second discussion. Again, I genuinely do not harbor any negative feelings, and I hope that we both can see mistakes being fixed ([37][38][39]) as a collaborative effort to improve Commons, as opposed to an adversarial competition.
When you nominated my uploads for deletion ([40][41][42]), I did not assume bad faith or take it personally. I would appreciate it if you could extend the same courtesy to me here. Chamaemelum (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Problem user removed a reviewed CC license tag; can't revert + other copyvio issues

Hi! User:Theresunset (talk | contribs) edited the license on this file to PD-self when they aren't the uploader: File:Shake,_Rattle_and_Roll_XV_Official_Trailer_-_Betong_Sumaya.jpg. The problem is that the file had a CC license via YouTube that was reviewed, so I can't just revert the edit.

This user has unfortunately continued to upload copyrighted material and does not seem to understand (yet) how copyrights and licensing works for images. I requested a mass delete here which has not been looked at yet, but this user has removed deletion tags and made other spurious license claims since then ( [43][44]) including claiming to be a reviewer ([45]). Mr. Gerbear (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Túrelio has reverted the edits by User:Theresunset. - Jmabel ! talk 20:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Request for clarification of the Wikimedia Commons policy and assessment of the actions of the administrator

Please provide an independent assessment of the actions of the administrator ‎Yann, who closed two nominations for the removal of files made by me. In the first case (1) there is a creative work of unknown authorship, originating from the territory of modern Russia or Ukraine (this depends on the exact date of creation of the work, which is unknown), where there is a common feature in copyright laws: the term protection of works made public without disclosing the identity of the author (anonymously or under a pseudonym), is calculated from the date of the work was first time legally made public, and not from the date of creation of the work. A special case of the "PD-Rus-Empire" license is also based on the fact of not only creation but also of make the work public before the October Revolution of 1917. In the case above there is no evidence that the work was made public before 1985. In another case (2), the work was signed by the author, that is, the work is not anonymous, but the fate of the author is not known, and the work is not old enough to confidently state that the author died at least 70 years ago, so the claim that the work is in the public domain in its country of origin (Ukraine) is not proved. Need to say, that in all such cases, before nominating such a file for deletion, I made my best efforts to establish the identity and fate of the author, or to find sufficiently old publications, in the hope of finding solid evidence that the work is indeed in the public domain. If successful, I never nominate the file for deletion, but amend licensed templates and provide additional citations to sources confirming that the work is in the public domain. In one of my previous nominations (see here), Yann put forward the thesis “We usually assume that old images were published at the time of creation, unless there is evidence to the contrary”, but that was protested by members of the Russian-language section of Wikipedia which i know as experienced in the field of copyright. Since then, Yann has closed my nominations with the only comment "no valid reason for deletion". Isn't the lack of evidence that a work is in the public domain in its country of origin a "valid reason for deletion" under Commons policy? Yellow Horror (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  • I would like to note that a culture of respect for copyright has not yet been formed in the post-Soviet space, so many and many files are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by users from this area, arguing as follows: "This art/photo is old and widely distributed on the Internet, so no one ever will not accuse us of copyright infringement". But I understand the mission of Wikimedia Commons as the collection and distribution of copyright-free works, not as the collection and distribution of orphan works. The ultimate goal of my actions is that the user, using a work of art from Wikimedia Commons, can be sure that he/she really does not violate the rights of its author, and not just that "no one will ever accuse him/her". If I misunderstand the mission of Wikimedia Commons, please confirm.--Yellow Horror (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
@Yellow Horror: both of these are clearly the work of professional photographers and, yes, in the absence of evidence we tend to default to the presumption that professional photographers promptly published their works. Especially on things like File:Тарасевич Лев Александрович.jpg, why would anyone even imaginably have made such a thing "for the drawer"? - Jmabel ! talk 19:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Indeed, in the Russian-language section of Wikipedia, the interpretation is accepted that a photograph that has signs of professional production is considered to be made public shortly after creation, but only if there is reason to believe that it did come into circulation from the customer, but not the photographer’s personal archive or other non-public repository. The transfer of copies of the photograph by the photographer to the customer is equated to made it public. However, the quality of the image in case (1), IMHO, does not allow to confidently state that this is an old professional photograph, and not an artistic portrait or a heavily retouched private photo. I looked through many photographs of Lev Alexandrovich Tarasevich in museum catalogs, literature, old press and various sites on the Internet, but could not find a photographic original of the image or its publication prior to 1985. Therefore, I consider it possible that the image was specially made for the publication of the Great Medical Encyclopedia by a master of drawing or retouching shortly before 1985.--Yellow Horror (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
If I read the Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Consolidated list Others#Soviet Union correct the photos are public domain per soviet union law if it got public domain before 1991. This means if the author died before 1966. If the author died later than this date we have to take the current 70 years after death time, currently this would be before 1953. With this I also think that we need to find out the year of dead of the author. GPSLeo (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, in the case where the author has signed his/her last name and address on the photograph, it is safe to consider a photograph taken and soon made public in the USSR as now public domain in Ukraine only if it is known for certain that its author died before {current year - 70} and was not posthumously rehabilitated (in Ukraine, unlike in Russia, it is not need to take into account the occupation of the author during the Great Patriotic War). Without a confirmation of Frolov's fate, the photo cannot be considered public domain in Ukraine for many years, until it becomes possible to conclude that "Frolov certainly died or rehabilitated more than 70 years ago". I don't think such a time will come before 2100. It remains to be hoped that even before that time, the fate of Frolov will become clear or the copyright laws will change for the better.--Yellow Horror (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The sorting of Categories with the letter ß

The sorting in the Category Yorckstraße (Wuppertal) (for example) is incorrect. It's probably because of the letter ß. The problem occurs more frequently, for more than half a year. This should be fixed urgently. Im Fokus (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what exactly is incorrect for you? Should the sortkey be set as "Yorckstrasse"? --A.Savin 15:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
i think he means 17 getting between 26 and 28. it's jolly weird, because no category had been set a different sortkey, so they have been always sorted by mediawiki default. RZuo (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Maybe a unified sortkey for all five subcats ("| 17" for "Yorckstraße 17" etc.) would help. --A.Savin 16:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
setting sortkeys explicitly is not a solution. it's certainly a bug for 17 to be between 26 and 28.--RZuo (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
  • This is indeed strange, although I doubt that ß was the cause of it. As it's pointless to sort the category Yorckstraße by "Yorckstraße", I've set an explicit sort order on each.
This is far from needing to be "fixed urgently" though. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Probably any category name in German using "ß" should have a DEFAULTSORT using "ss" instead. Similarly "ä"=>"ae", "ö"=>"oe", "ü"=>"ue", and analogously for the capitalized forms (capitalized "ß" barely exists). I wrote a good portion of Microsoft's documentation on internationalization, so for once I'm speaking from expertise here. - Jmabel ! talk 18:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so far. Okay, there are still urgent matters. But it is misleading if you search for the category "Friedrich-Ebert-Straße 148 (Wuppertal)" and don't find it as a subcategory of Category Friedrich-Ebert-Straße (Wuppertal), because of course you wouldn't expect it to be the third of 150 house numbers. Sometime in the second half of 2022 there must have been a change in the conversion of the "ß" in the sortkey. The sortkey is probably firmly connected to the category and is only saved again if it changes. Because if I change an old sortkey and save it and then reset it to the old value and save it, then the category with the exact same sortkey as a few minutes before (before I made my changes) is suddenly in a different place, much further up. (Just drilled through with Category Friedrich-Ebert-Straße 149 (Wuppertal)).
So it would be awesome if you admins could get your tech support to write a program that would go through the legacy sort keys once and convert all the old ß-encodings to the new version of ß-encoding. If my idea of ​​the technical background is correct, then this problem should be fixed for good. Thanks! --Im Fokus (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Im Fokus: No idea why that is, but admins have no more (and no less) pipeline to tech than does anyone else. Also, though, I see explicit "ß" in the sort key for most of these, which strikes me as dead wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 01:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with using special characters. They also exist in the Scandinavian and Slavic languages ​​with Latinized characters (Polish, Czech). As long as you do not leave these language areas, the sorting should remain consistent and constant. Just don't arbitrarily change the coding and give a damn about the old stock! Even if it were to be made as puristic as you think in the future, who is going to take care of the old keys? The recoding cannot be done manually and the current state is embarrassing in my opinion. Even if everything here is managed on a voluntary basis. Who can politely explain that to the technicians/programmers? Anyone has to be in contact with them and the task would probably not be that big for them! Im Fokus (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
the sort works perfectly if all numbers to be sorted have the same length, i.e. all 1/2/3 digits.
when you have a mix, one way to sort it properly is to add 0 in front to complete the shorter numbers. so 3, 22, 111 should be sorted by setting sortkeys to 003, 022, 111 (not necessary because it's 111 by default). otherwise, it's sorted by alphabetical order, which will be 111, 22, 3 because 1 appears before 2 and 2 before 3.--RZuo (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
as for ß, if users tend to look for it where it is in the unicode table, there's no need to set the sortkey to ss. the same goes for other non-ascii chars. for example, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:People_by_name&subcatfrom=Zz all these cats are not given a sortkey to make them appear behind the corresponding alphabets without diacritics.--RZuo (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
  • No, the sort doesn't work perfectly. Look at Category:Friedrich-Ebert-Straße (Wuppertal) and 147, 148, 149. I cannot explain this. AFAICS, both the page name and the DEFAULTSORT values are using the same sequence of codepoints, and I've tried it with the Infobox removed too. Yet we still get this split in the sorting.
I would agree that ß shouldn't be in the sort order at all for these (as it's part of the parent name, so we'd be best sorting by "148" alone). But we might still need it for Category:Streets in Wuppertal by name. Also there's simply the fact that the software is doing something inexplicable, which is never a good sign. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
so that's the bug, the root cause of the problem as @Im Fokus has been complaining from the beginning. RZuo (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Protected broken template (Wikimedia-screenshot)

Please edit Template_talk:Wikimedia-screenshot#Edit_request_(cat) to allow resolving "diffuse" issue of Category:Wikimedia screenshots. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Taylor 49: please respond to the request for clarification there; your requested edit was not very clear. - Jmabel ! talk 16:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Taylor 49 (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Rename File:Coat of Arms of Svierlahorsk.svg and File:Flag of Svierlahorsk.svg

Justification and proposed names are given at those pages. I made a typo in en:Svietlahorsk's name. Created two redirect pages with corrected names for operativeness. Sorry if I shouldn't write such requests at noticeboard. Plaga med (talk) 08:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Taylor 49 (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Fix Licensing tutorial en.svg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop&oldid=795746116#Licensing_tutorial_en.svg

could a sysop knowledgeable with svg plz help fix it? or, if you're willing, plz leave a message at Graphic Lab so that svg graphist can coordinate with you? thx. RZuo (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Barabashenjatko paid contributions and wrong licensing

For details see Ukrainian Wiki noticeboard. Short story: Barabashenjatko has an account in Ukrainian freelancing platform and made paid contributions across different Wikis, in Commons too. Most of her files uploaded with clearly wrong licenses, looks like her contribution needs to be just nuked. Айнене (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. 4 files deleted, 3 nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Partnership-Layout change

Template:Partnership-Layout Please either add role="presentation" (to the table) or change permission for template editors. Thanks, Nux (talk··dyskusja) 15:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Nux: I can't even work out where you wan that particular text. Would you be more specific? - Jmabel ! talk 16:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Jmabel. There is a table within that template. Tables are intended to be used for tabular data. The template is for messages, not for tabular data. Using presentation role in that case can help with accessibility and WCAG related issues. Nux (talk··dyskusja) 19:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done, because this seems simply correct but next time you might take this up on the template talk page rather before coming to this noticeboard. - Jmabel ! talk 20:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:이녕

Hoi,

Can someone process this DR? Thanks! — regards, Revi 07:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 07:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Privacy issue in File:VW Jetta V Fahrenheit GLI.jpg

According to Swiss legislation, photos of vehicles with recognizable license plates may not be published without further ado in Switzerland. Following a request by the owner per Ticket:2023082710005637, the number plate has been pixeled now. Yet it can still be read in the old version of the file. Can that old version please be deleted? Thanks, Mussklprozz (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I've hid the first version (did not want to delete it to not lose attribution to the author). If that won't work, the first version can still be deleted. --Rosenzweig τ 13:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig Thanks, hiding it is the perfect solution. :-) Mussklprozz (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Please lock User:Kunstmuseum bayreuth

We have received an email from that museum per Ticket:2023082810004341. They have lost all access data, including the email address under which that account was created. They will create a new account with another name. Thanks, Mussklprozz (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Gbawden (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, could an admin please add (ideally using a tool like Help:Gadget-ACDC) the following SDC claim copyright license (P275) -> GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2 or later (Q50829104) to the following permanently protected files?

Please note that this will not automatically remove them from the above category, as a purge is required afterwards, but I can do that, as no special rights are needed for this part of the task. Thank you, Schlurcher (talk) 06:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Forgot ping: @Schlurcher. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Artkristinart

User:Artkristinart Polygnotus (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Userpage deleted and nominated images for deletion absent permission. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Category:Deletion error/T244567

A software change is deployed now as part of the new software version 1.41.0-wmf.24. Please try to delete the files (and the category, if empty). Thanks. Der Umherirrende (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done @Umherirrender: Wow! It works! Thanks for fixing this. Yann (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Betulinol.tif

Can an admin check this deletion request? I think it was not closed properly. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done by Krd. Marbletan (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The sorting of Categories with the letter ß - Part II

@A.Savin: , @RZuo: , @Andy Dingley: , @Jmabel: In case you are still interested, please look at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T323868 So the problem has been known for a long time, but the remedy is very uncertain Im Fokus (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can we please have someone block User:2402:800:6305:E1B2:909:604B:8B2D:CC31, they are posting a lot of objectionable messages. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 06:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. Blocked for a year, vandalism reverted. Taivo (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Restore Category:Cattle in Ternopil Oblast

No empty. Микола Василечко (talk) 06:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Rename file

Dear admin, please rename this File:Butterfly eating fruits in Butterfly Farm, Poring Hor Spring, Ranau.jpg into "File:Butterfly eating fruits in Butterfly Farm, Poring Hot Spring, Ranau.jpg". There was a typo on that Hor. Thank you. WAqil (WMYS) (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@WAqil (WMYS), this did not need an admin intervention. I have moved the file for you. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
You can click on the move file option under tools. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

TTPTuthanh

Upload many copyrighted images. I am I Talk 17:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Presumably about User:TTPTuthanh. Jmabel ! talk 18:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Deleted his uploads, warned via talk page. Kadı Message 20:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Flagged for name of original file

I uploaded https://www.flickr.com/photos/mainedoe/8581085676 which is protected by CC-BY 2.0, and was warned that the original file name was blacklisted. Would this still need to be changed if it's the original file name? Thank you. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Pac-Man PHD Yes, you should name the file something descriptive, like (for example, it doesn't have to be exactly this!) "Florida Commissioner of Education Tony Bennett (8581085676).jpg". —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Fix Italian translation in gadget

Hi :) non-technical fix required in a gadget. See request:

MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-Stockphoto.js/it#Please fix Italian bug existing since 2020

Thanks :) --bozz (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Valerio Bozzolan: Done, please use {{Edit request}} from next time. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
OK thanks! (Is that mentioned somewhere from this page? It seems not. Maybe we can mention it in the notes in the header) bozz (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Alfa Romeo 6C-2300B.jpg

Hello,

I did a first upload of this file yesterday. Unfortunately I used the while without changed numberplate. A few minutes ago I uploaded the correct while. As number plates are a point of discussion: could you please remove the version of 3 September soon. Thank you very much in advance. Best regards, Wikisympathisant (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Please undelete

Since JuTa hasn’t been around, please another admin undelete Category:Black, brown, green, pink, yellow, as it is not empty anymore. Thank you! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin ✓ Done —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Repeated stalking from Chamaemelum

I have filed two complaints on this admin board and got no response. I am being stalked by a banned Wikipedia user Chamaemelum. This user logs in every few days to target historic photographs I have uploaded 2, 3 or 4 years ago.

Examples: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. These are 8 examples, 3 others could be cited. These are all historic photographs I uploaded in most cases years ago.

There is no valid reason why this user needs to stalk my editing history going back between 2-4 years to make tedious edits to just prove some kind of point and harass me. I have sent emails about Chamaemelum's behaviour to the WMF as this user has harassed me via email. I am requesting that an admin asks them to stop this stalking behaviour on site here. I have asked them to stop but they do not listen. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy: The eight examples you've given appear to be making minor improvements to the information summary and/or licensing fields. There are times that people will see an editor make a common mistake once and will then go through that editor's edits to search for instances when they've made that mistake, so that the content can be corrected. Based solely on the edits, that would appear at first glance to be what this looks like. That being said, you've brought up some fairly serious allegations that would reasonably impugn motive (i.e. e-mail harassment) should this be a personal dispute that crosses wiki lines.
Are you able to provide a bit more of a history of this dispute, so that the Commons community can better understand what's going on? I'm having a bit of a hard time tracking the EnWiki origins of this dispute aside from the ANI thread, and I'm active on EnWiki, so I can imagine that it might be a bit hard to dig into for those who aren't as active there. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi Psychologist Guy, I did not send any emails to you, or anyone on Wikipedia. I understand your frustration given that you think I am sending you these emails, but this is misplaced. I just checked in my own email, and I can see the IP addresses of senders. You could use this to verify that I am not the sender of the emails so we can move past this.
Here are the steps, assuming you use Gmail (similar for other email providers):
  • Navigate to the harassing email whose sender's IP address you want to find.
  • In the upper-right corner of the email, click on the three vertical dots.
  • From the drop-down menu, select "Show original."
  • A new tab will open showing the email's raw headers / content. In this window, you will see a lot of metadata about the email, including various "Received: from" lines.
  • Look for the "Received: from" lines in the header. The IP address closest to the text "by smtp.gmail.com" or similar will be the originating IP.
Trying this on a random email, I got the IP and the following information: United States, Tennessee, Nashville, ISP: Selligent Inc.
You should give this IP address information to an admin or WMF so they can cross-reference this against my IP address and location. This would verify that I am not the sender.
  • Also, please share the contents of this email if you are able, or at least describe this a bit further. (It seems important; brought up in each of the three ANI posts.) Depending on what the email is, I might be able to provide quicker proof than an admin IP cross-reference.
The two unrelated users who replied to the previous posts ([53][54]), including an admin, said my actions on commons were "OK" and not "problematic." These are similar to responses to Psychologist Guy's other comments elsewhere: [55][56][57]
I am actually sorry for how the fixes came across to you since you believed I sent you emails. Those simple edits weren't me stalking you: "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles."
To me, the following is closer to stalking/harassment than fixing a few minor mistakes:
  • Nominating multiple files I created for deletion under improper rationale,
  • saying [58] my simple edits are "creepy stalking," that I "obviously have nothing to do," and that my deletion request of a non-public domain image is "wasn't created in good faith" to "target [you],"
  • saying [59] that a clear deletion nomination was "out of revenge," and that uploading an example of what a CC tag on YouTube looks like is "harassment,"
  • repeating [60] the "in revenge" comment on enwiki, and saying you believe my graphs [61] aren't really my own work while linking to one of these graphs on enwiki.
Chamaemelum (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Red-tailed hawk in short, Chamaemelum is a community-banned Wikipedia user who I had some history with because like many other users I found their disruption problematic. The user was only on Wikipedia for 3 months before being banned but as others stated it was obviously not a new account. You can see from above that they have a lot of experience with Wikis.
A copyright investigation was filed against them [62] and I volunteered on WP:FTN to help clean up some copyrighted images. Two images were deleted and I was wrong about a graph. I now regret offering to do this because I am being followed by this user in an act of revenge. I am being repeatedly targeted by this user but I did not submit their early uploads for deletion, nor have I gone through their entire editing history, another user submitted some of their images for deletion. I want to be left alone from this user but every few days they are going through my entire editing history here making trivial edits to historic images I have uploaded. This user is not a historian like myself, I have created nearly 400 Wikipedia articles unlike them who was quickly blocked on Wikipedia and had all their edits reverted for copyright and disruption.
This user does not need to be stalking my editing history from 4 years ago making these type of trivial edits. I have a history with this user so this is obviously not good-faith editing. This is being done to harass me and is a type of WP:POINT behaviour. I have been here since 2019 uploading hundreds of historic photographs and never had a problem with anyone here. I now have this new banned Wikipedia user targeting me who has only been here a few months. It is not acceptable. It is not being done in good faith, I want to be left alone. Psychologist Guy (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@Chamaemelum: it's easy just to create a fake email account and use a proxy or VPN so if it is you who is doing it then that is the method you would choose. I have an open email address on my Wikipedia account and have received abuse from banned users in the past, it has happened but not for a long time. If you are not sending the emails, the only other user who it might be is Belteshazzar who has been banned on hundreds of proxies who I have had history with. Looking through the writing style of that user they share a lot of similarities with yourself. As noted by others you are not a new user. Belteshazzar is strictly on proxies so it would be a waste of time for me filing a check-user but I am seeing a lot of similarities. I would like to deal with the emails privately with the WMF. I started this section to discuss your repeated following me around on here which is not being done in good faith. You have still not explained why you are doing it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't mind that you deletion requested multiple images I uploaded. I don't consider it harassment, and I hold no grudges at all. I appreciate if someone points out when I make a mistake. I've never looked through your entire history, but I did look at some of your uploads because I noticed a common simple mistake with a few of them. I hope you can understand that this isn't to harass or annoy you. It is also not true that I had "all their edits reverted for copyright and disruption." My enwiki edits were already discussed on enwiki as you pointed out, and I learned and accepted that feedback (slow down aspartame editing, formatting, etc.); though I paraphrased too closely on the "Tayside children's sleep questionnaire" article, there have not been subsequent copyright issues with my writing (e.g. [63]), and even if so that's not directly related to my contributions here on commons.
With regards to using a proxy, I agree with you generally, but it could still be a good idea to at least check [64] if the IP is a proxy or not. Chamaemelum (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Just so I can understand something - how do you know File:Bastian Greshake Tzovaras.jpg is under a Creative Commons license? I can’t see the exact source where you got this from, when I went to the photographers website I don’t see anything that says photos are under a CC license. I’m looking on my phone, so I may have missed something. Thank you. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Bastian's personal website has a CC0 1.0 indicator. The image has also been uploaded with CC licenses many other times, including on the Creative Commons domain itself. I've updated the file page to make these sources more clear, thanks. Chamaemelum (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
@Psychologist Guy: Thank you for this explanation. If you're able to, would you be willing to forward the emails you've received thus far to info-commons@wikimedia.org so that administrators can take a look at them? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I just want to give an update on this situation. The user who sent the emails to me was Belteshazzar. I have been in communication with the WMF as I complained about Belteshazzar. I can't go into too much detail here but I have had some serious harassment from this user off-site. 3 days ago Belteshazzar has been globally banned by the WMF [65], so his harassment and stalking is a serious issue and the WMF have taken action against it after I sent them evidence of what has been doing. I have been stalked by this person for quite some time on and off Wikipedia. He sent me two emails on a throwaway email address telling me my Commons uploads are going to be deleted. Because Chamaemelum was submitting photographs I uploaded for deletion I believed the emails were sent from this user but now I know that was not the case. I apologise for accusing Chamaemelum of sending these emails. I have had others look at this and apart from some similar editing interests, I do not believe Chamaemelum is Belteshazzar. I suspected for a while that Belteshazzar and Chamaemelum are the same user, but I now believe I was wrong about that. I apologize for the accusations, the user who was doing this to me has now globally banned. I am taking a break from Commons, so an admin can close this if they like. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Psychologist Guy, thank you. I'm sorry Belteshazzar sent harassing emails and there's no hard feelings over the accusations; I know a situation like that can be stressful. Chamaemelum (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Hey, I hope you are ok. Stalking is not ok, and I’m sorry you had to put up with this behaviour. I’m glad the WMF was able to help you. Be well and come back when you can to commons! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Please move 3 users from "Category:User en-gb" to "Category:User en-GB" by editing their user pages. Taylor 49 (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Gbawden (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Move Flag of Azerbaijan

Hi. Please move:

per discussion on enwiki NMW03 (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Are the file names factually incorrect? These files are used in a ton of places, and our rename policy doesn't allow for renaming for marginal improvements. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Forgotten DR?

Was this DR forgotten? It has been open for roughly four months. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 18:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so. The currently oldest not yet closed deletion request dates from March 18, 2023, six weeks older than the one you linked to. --Rosenzweig τ 18:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
It is not on Commons:Deletion requests/2023/04, it seems that there is a problem with to many included pages on these deletion requests by month pages. GPSLeo (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, you have to go to the by-day pages. I actually made a thing to help with this that others may find helpful: User:Mdaniels5757/OpenDRs shows all daily subpages with closable DRs. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the answers. But why is it still open? I mean, I understand a DR to be open for months when is pretty controversial with several "well-founded" divergent opinions, but it doesn't seem to be the case here. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 00:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
@Kacamata There is a very large backlog of DRs to close (6,788 right now, by my count). It mostly doesn't have to do with this particular DR, there is just a shortage of admins working on DR right now. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
More accurately, there's a shortage of admins working on everything right now. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
@Mdaniels5757 and @The Squirrel Conspiracy I see. I didn't know that the backlog was this big. Thank you all for taking your time to answer my question. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 17:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Village_pump#Multiple_better_quality_duplicates_nominated_for_deletion_by_bot.

Can an Admin please shut off the OptimusPrimeBot? I have contacted the bot owner on their talk page with a ping. I manually undid some files, but the bot keeps adding more files. I'm hoping the bot can be modified in some way with these Sanborn map files. I am willing to help tag the older/ original files, if that is appropriate or needed.

Please, see: Commons:Village pump#Multiple better quality duplicates nominated for deletion by bot.

I do not know how to use the recommended VFC at the Village pump. The bot keeps adding Sanborn map files tagged with "duplicate" to be deleted. I understand that this bot tags newer files as duplicates for deletion, while keeping the older original uploaded file.

However, these newer Sanborn map files from DPLA are better than the older/ original uploaded files. The newer DPLA/ Sanborn map file have a great description of Sanborn maps (the older files do not). Also, the newer files have more detail in the license section (the older files does not). Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done 3-day block to get owner's attention. Presumably they will come here to discuss. Once they do, any admin should feel free to unblock at owner's request. - Jmabel ! talk 18:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
With this drastic measure you have my full attention.
In form:
  • @Ooligan it's really not cool to ask to administrators to block me without discussion. You could have simply asked me first to lower the bot cadence, or disable this specific feature for a few days if you wanted to make a pass on the ~2000 duplicates imported by DPLA bot. Or you could also have simply asked to @Dominic to see if he's able to modify the original file descriptions so that the newer files can be deleted without any loss of information.
  • @Jmabel it's really not cool to block my bot without any discussion, while it does nothing wrong against Commons policies and rules. I find this behaviour abusive, and a lack of tact and respect for my work, as the bot activities are meant to help the administrators to review duplicate files. I would never have expected an administrator to block my bot without any discussion first.
In substance:
  • I'm really upset to see my bot blocked for three days, without any discussion, while the original problem is caused by @DPLA bot! Since when do you shoot the messengers? It's up to DPLA bot to fix this problem by making sure duplicate files are not uploaded in the first place, and descriptions improved instead. I really don't see why my bot should be blocked because of another bot problems. But even with DPLA bot problems it didn't cross my mind to ask for its blocking. Instead, I reported this problem politely and nicely to @Dominic, and he will look into it.
I'd like to hear @Túrelio and @Mdaniels5757 opinions, as they're the ones who actively deal with the duplicate files (and I hope they find my bot's work valuable).
Please unblock my bot. I can't import any pictures right now because of the blocking. The duplicate detection is only a side feature.
Ping @VIGNERON @Yann vip (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
@Don-vip: You should fix the issues mentioned (if needed, I didn't check), and insure that they won't happen again before the bot to start again. Yann (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
@Yann Thanks for the answer. I contest any malfunction for my bot. Keeping the oldest file is in my eyes, the good choice. It's up to DPLA bot to fix the problems (updating oldest files with the new description + making sure new duplicates are not uploaded in the future). I have however disabled the duplicate detection mechanism for the time being (it's just a crontab on toolforge) so that Dominic can take his time to fix the issues, without putting him under unnecessary pressure. vip (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleting a newer file with better metadata without merging the metadata is probably not a great idea. I would hope that is not how a typical human editor would handle the situation. - Jmabel ! talk 21:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: it may be true (except you're wrong on one point, the bot doesn't delete itself, it just put the template for deletion, precisely asking for human attention) but uploading a duplicate is even worse. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Don-vip: unblocked. Ooligan said he was failing to get your attention to the matter, and I figured this would make sure no damage was done without a chance to discuss. Nothing intended as punitive, just wanted to insure against a scenario where you might (for example) be away from your computer for a day or two while your bot did something possibly controversial, since bots should be sticking to uncontroversial edits. - Jmabel ! talk 21:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel thank you! vip (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
@Don-vip Could you please turn the duplicate tagging back on? The DPLA duplicates seem to have been taken care of. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Mdaniels5757, sure! It's back. vip (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Template:Potd/2023-09-09 and Template:Potd/2023-09-09 (en)

User:Danielfargo1 changed the picture to one created by himself, which does not meet the requirements as POTD. And now the non-english descriptions do not match the picture. So please can someone revert his edit? --jed (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done reverted by User:Jaqen. - Jmabel ! talk 15:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Potential role account spotted

User:Bawlsguarana seems to be a role account of BAWLS Guarana, although they have been inactive since 2015 (8 years ago), so I don't know if it's worthwhile. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 20:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka Not worthwhile, plus role accounts are allowed here (albeit only with verification), see COM:UPOL. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Giangphan15052004

Upload many copyrighted images. Pminh141 (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Convenience link: User:Giangphan15052004 - Jmabel ! talk 23:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Looks like there have been no warnings, no deletion request so far, etc. I suspect this is someone well-intentioned but with little understanding of copyright (or of how to indicate a source). It wouldn't surprise me if all of their uploads need to be deleted, but someone who knows Vietnamese should communicate with them and explain the situation before any other action is taken. - Jmabel ! talk 23:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I warned them.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Last warning, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Giangphan15052004. Yann (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
@Pminh141: The right board for this is COM:ANU. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
@Jeff G.@Yann Thanks! Pminh141 (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
@Pminh141: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
The sysop at Vietnamese Wikipedia told me to report this user here, thank you for let me know. Pminh141 (talk) 09:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Renault Vivastella rear 2023-09.jpg

Hello, I uploaded the file named above. Unfortunately I noticed yesterday late evening, it was not the file without anonymous numberplate. Even the original plate is allowed to use on more cars, I would you ask to remove the first uploaded version. Thank you very much in advance.

Best regards, Wikisympathisant (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Gbawden (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Category:Streets of Logroño

Following the case with other cities, this should be renamed as Category:Streets in Logroño, but somehow that became a redirect towards this one. Can anyone undo the mistake? Thanks in advance, Alavense (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Did the deletion, handed the move to the delinker. It will probably take a few hours for this to take effect because the delinker is backlogged. - Jmabel ! talk 14:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
@Alavense: I finished the move.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

RevDel request

Hello!

I am unsure of the correct venue for requesting file RevDels, so I'm making my request to RevDel this version of File:English Wikipedia screenshot.png due to being a copyvio (see relevant deletion discussion).

Feel free to move this discussion to another venue if this is the incorrect one.

Cheers, QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 18:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @Mugtheboss, who first noticed this copyvio. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 18:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Also, courtesy link to that day's Main Page QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 18:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Could you specify which of the 10+ versions of this image is copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
@Túrelio: The one I linked to (version on January 18, 2023) QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 19:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Midnight68

Could someone add this to Category:Nudity and sexuality-related deletion requests/deleted?--Trade (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jmabel ! talk 01:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Do you think its time to lift the protection? Its been more than ten years at this point Trade (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
There's almost no good reason to edit a closed discussion (this is one of very few good reasons), so I'm inclined to leave it. If it were a "normal" page (not a closed discussion) I would certainly lift it. But if some other admin wants to do that & take responsibility for watchlisting it, I don't object. - Jmabel ! talk 18:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Request to move Icelandic FOP over to the Icelandic Wikipedia page

Would it be possible to move 402 files that depict buildings in Iceland and have been deleted on Commons over to the Icelandic Wikipedia project where they are allowed under fair use? Steinninn ♨ 21:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Fair use is not a blanket authorization to use non-free files. They need to have a rationale, which means that they need to be in use in an article. You should feel free to request individual files be retrieved and moved to that project if you plan to immediately add them to an article and supply the rationale though. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
That's a good point. Would it be possible to view the files or get a zip file of the files so that I can choose the ones that would be used in articles of the icelandic Wikipedia. I am currently going through all the articles of places in Iceland and adding available images to them. Then someone in our village pump mentioned that many images had been uploaded to Commons but later deleted. --Steinninn ♨ 22:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
I do not think we have technical ability to do this. If you know which photographs were in the articles and then deleted (they are typically deleted by CommonDelinker) I can help with undeletion. Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Desynchronized uploads

Hi! I've been uploading images from a trip of mine. Unfortunately, when I was doing it in Pattypan, I've accidentally desynchronized filenames and descriptions with actual files. As a result, 101 of my uploads, all from today (16th September), are uploaded with wrong filenames and descriptions. I would like to ask you whether you can delete these files so I can re-upload them once I sort the table out. (won't be that hard to sort it). Thank you! Aktron (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Aktron: just to be clear: you want to have all of your uploads deleted beginning with 07:35, 16 September 2023 File:Ratibořice, cesta okolo Kuchyňské zahrady 02.jpg and going forward in time, right? - Jmabel ! talk 21:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
yes, its 101 files in total. They will be re-uploaded with proper filenames. I am sorry for this error, it happened to me for the first time I joined Commons in 2005. Aktron (talk) 07:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
@Aktron: Server apparently conked out in the middle of the mass delete and gave me an error. I had to resubmit. I hope this went right; I certainly hope I did not wreak havoc. Offhand it looks right to me, but please check closely! - Jmabel ! talk 15:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Thank you for the deletion. Now the images were re-uploaded with proper filenames so the whole thing is done! Aktron (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Undo translations

I need help over at Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2023 in Sweden/sv to revert back to September 4, before yesterdays translation of the page. Thanks in advance. /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 07:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done by Jon Harald Søby. Thanks! /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Questionable file licensing

I am a reg at EN WP, but am not sure how things work on the WM Commons side. File:Andy Warhol in 1950.jpg has been challenged at w:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive2 as lacking evidence of pre-1977 publication. Where do I go to bring this up to the proper authorities.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

This might be a better question for VPC, but we'd need to know the provenance of the photograph to determine if the photograph was considered published according to the Copyright Act of 1909. There is U.S. case law that says that pre-1978, a photograph would be considered published when it left the custody of the original photographer. Abzeronow (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
No credit at all at the cited source. I have no idea whether it was published pre-1977; might be worth contacting the source to ask where they got it. - Jmabel ! talk 17:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Does the uploader User:Realmaxxver have responsibility for this. It seems that both this and this are presented as sources. Neither seems to be a copyright holder. What am I suppose to do or should this image be deleted?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I just figured that VPC means COM:VPC. Heading over there.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Here's some more info on the photograph: https://web.archive.org/web/20160328113500/https://www.warhol.org/collection/aboutandy/biography/successisajob/1994-22-9-1/ PascalHD (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Please delete a file version

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:U-Bahn-Linien_Berlin.svg – Concerning my version as of today, 14:01.

Thanks to @S. Gollin's well organized work, it was easy to update the now completed U5. But somehow the SVG-text got botched and I haven't found a solution yet.

Please revert the file to its original version. Thx! Affegass (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Please revdel File:NetBeans IDE 8.0.2, debugging a Java app.png

Please revdel the previous file revision of this screenshot as it contains non-free elements (Windows taskbar + icons). Matr1x-101 {user - talk? - useless contributions} 15:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done GMGtalk 16:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

User re-uploading non-free image under a different account

The image "Roi du Maroc en 2023.jpg" was uploaded by user Wiki4052023 recently and was speedily deleted earlier today/yesterday because the source was explicitly stated as Instagram, which indeed it was (here). Now the image has been re-uploaded as Mohammed 6 in 2023.jpg by a new account, James Richards Thomson (correction: James Richards Thom) and incorrectly labelled as "own work". Looks like an attempt to circumvent Wiki Commons deletion policy. Based on the user's talk page, I suspect it was also previously uploaded and deleted as "King Of Morocco 2023.jpg" on September 4. Moreoever, the user also appears to be socking on the English Wikipedia: Wiki4052023 added the now-deleted image to Mohammed VI of Morocco yesterday ([66]) before it was reverted, and an IP has just re-added the new re-upload to the same article ([67]). R Prazeres (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

It's James Richards Thom (not "Thomson"). I've moved the user-talk notice. DMacks (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Oh, thanks, not sure why I messed that up. R Prazeres (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm also pretty sure that Wikilook31278902 is the same user and appears to be uploading more non-free images. Wikilook31278902 uploaded Moulay al hassan 2023.jpg, which is clearly from the web too (see here). And the same IP that is edit-warring on behalf of Wiki4052023 and James Richards Thomson on the English Wikipedia has just added that image to an article there. Same type of content, same type of behaviour. R Prazeres (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I have been trying to get a w:WP:DCM approved. The photographer has sent in the image to VRT. It seems that it is being ignored at VRT hiccup regarding ticket #2023091410010181. No one is responding to our emails. What do I need to do to get the image approved?--TonyTheTiger (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: Do you happen to know if the photograph has already been uploaded to Commons? I'd be happy to take a quick look if you can get me that info. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Also: not sure what you meant to link there, but the "VRT hiccup" thing is a link to nowhere. - Jmabel ! talk 20:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
It's Ticket:2023091410010181. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
User:Jmabel, The final communication from VRT seemed to ignore this image. At first I thought it was ignored by accident, but I am unable to get any responses about the image that the photographer submitted. Thus, I doubt it has been uploaded in commons.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 03:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
The link is suppose to be to Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard#VRT_hiccup_regarding_ticket_#2023091410010181.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Stalled category moves

User:CommonsDelinker/commands seems to be stalled out again for category moves. I tried the documented way of kickstarting it, but that seems to believe the bot is already running. - Jmabel ! talk 19:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

It's been over 24 hours, no response, so I will cross-post at COM:VP. - Jmabel ! talk 23:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Template:Male babies by year by country

Could someone delete this template? I made the move accidently--Trade (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done :) Léna (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Uncategorized categories

I've dealt with the first 30 entries at Special:UncategorizedCategories and a larger number of miscellaneous others; there is a ton of work to be done here, if anyone is at all interested in taking it on. - Jmabel ! talk 02:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Continuing on this. I've just spotted a whole group of misnamed and incorrectly constructed categories; this part is not necessarily an admin problem, let me know if there is somewhere else this should be moved:
Extended content

All of these need to be renamed from "Palestinian Territories" or "Palestinian Territory" to "Palestinian territories", and need to use {{Palestinian territories photographs taken on navbox}} rather than the nonexistent {{Palestinian Territories photographs taken on navbox}} or {{Palestinian Territory photographs taken on navbox}}. Does anyone know of a way to do this with a bot or at least something other than slow, manual work? - Jmabel ! talk 19:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I've updated the infobox with AutoWikiBrowser. Moves cannot be done that way and also all the files would need to be updated to match the new categories. Maybe @Rudolphous: has an idea, as his bot has generated these as far as I see. --Schlurcher (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
If User:CommonsDelinker gets fixed (it's been broken for over a week) then it could be harnessed to do the rest of this. - Jmabel ! talk 18:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_93&oldid=806999377"