This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Well, we don't have a policy of verification here, and don't need reliable sources, we just host images which may be useful for an educational purpose. As for the use of the images, it's for their users on Wikipedia and elsewhere to apply verification and, if necessary, debate on an article's talkpage. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@Kes47: What is it supposed to look like? How do you know? How is that different from the file you mentioned? Do you have reliable sources to back your claims? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me00:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@Slowking4: I've encountered this before. It's on the global blacklist, and at Meta they weren't particularly inclined to remove the entry. I recommend just uploading it with a lowercase name. Guanaco (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
The deletion log clearly says "No permission since 9 April 2018" which is correct. It says nothing about a license. And you've been here for 12 years. COM:UDR is where you request undeletion of images. --Majora (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I apologize if that came across a little harsh. If it makes any difference I'm trying to dig through the archives to see if I can find a proper source for the image in question so I can restore it. --Majora (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, shouldn't have been so snappish, just, y'know, I did search for undeletion requests, but there's a ton of stuff that comes up before the page you need, and I rather thought that was for if it was deleted after an AfD. I thought someone had just deleted the licence.
From what I can tell, the uploader was apparently acting as an organizational account, but the organization has ceased to exist, so showing that it's an organizational account definitively is the problem?
(Edit conflict) The organization didn't fully cease to exist. It was absorbed in 2015 into the new Francis Crick Institute. If the images really were under a type of organization copyright then it would be reasonable to believe that the new Institute would now own those copyrights. In reality those images should have problem been marked as "need OTRS permission" a while ago as there is very little evidence that the upload was who they say they were. Actually, now that I look at it it appears that all of their photos were deleted for this very same reason. Which is a shame. Perhaps we can email the Institute to see if these images were ever under an appropriate license? --Majora (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Well Done even though I disliked doing that since they really were good images. I'll reach out to the Institute sometime today to see if we can get proper permission statements from them regarding these images. --Majora (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I suspect we had permission at the time, though: These images do not appear to have ever been online, and there's a deletion request where the person in question outright states that a Wellcome file had gotten mixed in and asked it to be deleted, which I wouldn't think a copy faker would do. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Right, I saw that. But it is technically an external source uploaded by someone who was not the photographer and that requires OTRS confirmation or a statement of permission on a source page. It should have been done when the files were uploaded years ago but alas it was not. I've emailed the Institute to see if perhaps get these images back. --Majora (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Protection request for protection incons on french Wikipedia
Hi,
I request an autoconfirmed protection (edit, move and upload) for these files because they are used in lots of templates for page protection on French Wikipedia :
Dear admins, I uploaded the file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brian_Cookson,_Trowbridge_1982.jpg earlier today believing that the subject's name was Brian Cookson, however I have discovered this this is incorrect, correct name is Brian Cookman. I intend to use the file in the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cookman, but if possible it would be best if the file is renamed before I do this to avoid potential confusion. So, if possible I would like to have the file renamed to "Brian_Cookman,_Trowbridge_1982.jpg". (If this is not possible, I can upload a new file under that name and request for the old one to be deleted). Let me know... thanks in advance - Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Would it not be better to stick to SPI cases? Creating categories for "sockmasters" seems to give a vandal an avoidable goal, when we should be reducing attention and make it seem boring. --Fæ (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Vandals (and broader, all abusers who can’t pass for legitimate users under a cursory inspection) aren’t a serious problem on Commons. I’d say which abusers are really time-consuming, but won’t encourage them… although you might understand me, mates. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
This thread is turning into a question of guidelines rather than a case, so BEANS is not that relevant.
SPI cases are an excellent way of collating an archive of evidence of connected accounts, behaviour and other more technical patterns. It's more flexible than creating categories and is more "boring" for a sock puppeteer to worry about at they are more behind-the-scenes.
I am making an observation, but not strongly advocating solutions, primarily as I fall on the side of ignoring socking when it is either not active or not obviously disruptive, not because it is not wrong, but because we have seen so many long term contributors burn out after being (apparently) overstretched with sock hunting rather than spending time doing happier stuff like content creation.
Oh, and of course I am not a sysop though have been elsewhere, so these things are not directly in my field of view. --Fæ (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
In terms of “sock hunting” and having a flexible yet boring place to record socking, this is why I use simple:User:Vermont/Reports. It makes it so much easier to identify and record sockpuppet activity. In regard to sockpuppeteering, if they are socking and pretending to be a constructive editor they should not be permitted to remain doing so. If their original account was blocked, there is a legitimate reason to it and they should not be permitted to resume editing unless their is some sort of appeal or consensus. A significant amount of LTA’s/socks I come across promote a certain subject or ideology, and it is commonly slight or subtle to the point that most admins, when initially coming across the user, AGF and allow them to continue. Vermont (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
On Commons if an account is uploading correctly released images, then that is creating a net positive for our shared mission. The zero tolerance for socks on Wikipedias, along with salt & burn all contributions, is not a policy carried over here, because an image or photograph of itself can and should be judged on its (verifiable) educational content alone. Even a pattern of uploads which demonstrate a clear "ideology" is not a problem, so long as educational value can be argued.
Persistent problematic socks or those that game the system should be blocked, but there is no special benefit in spending our scarce volunteer time, or your time, chasing down and outing socks that are doing nothing wrong on this project and where those contributions do not disrupt other projects. There are good reasons for Commons to remain a potential outlet for long term problematic users that are passionate about open knowledge, but for various reasons have difficulty working collegiately with others in discussion on this project or others. If they can avoid those disruptive patterns by contributing to content work here (categorization, uploading, even raising valid deletion requests), then it seems to benefit everyone if we allow them the ability to contribute anonymously and positively.
It may be that working positively here for a sufficiently long period, could help them demonstrate they understand our projects better and may be able to appeal blocks or topic bans elsewhere. --Fæ (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you that problematic users on other projects should be able to contribute on commons to try and regain some trust to potentially appeal blocks and bans on other wikis. Regardless, socks of locked users must be blocked and reported to stewards. Thus, with cases like the user this section was originally created about (Selena+simmer) and other socks that may have uploaded legitimately and correctly licensed images (Fuerdai’s done a few), they should be blocked and reported. Appeals for users in this situation must be handled by stewards. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
In practical terms we agree, so no point in flogging this further. The only debate is how much effort should go into tracking down sock accounts that are not behaving in a problematic way and when the outcomes are better to not bother. Regardless of past locks and bans, if someone has a true clean start and sticks to it (not something that obsessive puppeteers seem content to do), then striving to implement policies or guidelines that say they should go away, make little difference. --Fæ (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Jdx. This guy who likes to disturb Vermont and me recently, won't stop vandalizing with that picture of Nyami, so, Is it possible to protect the picture only for auto confirmed users? Also, is it possible to protect the pictures of this Nyami, Mimi and Mimi 2? I ask this because if the main picture of Nyami is protected, the sockpuppet creator will be vandalising on the remaining SVG files mentioned before. My Regards.--VictorPines (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Description of the file on en main page has an error
Mass copyright violations uploaded by Matthew Wong (PMA)
Hello going through Matthew Wong (PMA)'s recent uploads almost all of them come from sources that don't have a valid license for upload on commons. Could an admin do the needful and either nuke the uploads or block the individual? - Cameron11598(talk) 02:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
A few of these are actually sourced to a mirror site and are actually ok. I'm going through them all now just to be sure. --Majora (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
These new requirements will apply to new accounts and privileged accounts. New accounts will be required to create a password with a minimum length of 8 characters. Privileged accounts will be prompted to update their password to one that is at least 10 characters in length.
These changes are planned to be in effect on December 13th. If you think your work or tools will be affected by this change, please let us know on the talk page.
These aren't reuploads as far as I can tell. They are however out of scope and I have DR'ed them. A block is premature at this time in my opinion. --Majora (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
donlagic elvis travaje ou sloveniji kom sofeer ouljubbljanni sava dir Ljubljana slovenija
Doesn't appear to be anything we can help with (they are looking for someone according to Google Translate). And this will never archive without a proper signature. --Majora (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Not warranted anymore because rectified by Majora. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Warum werden ungültige Stimmen die nach Abstimmungsende 30. November eingetragen wurden gewertet und nicht entfernt?
Einträge am 2. Dezember 2018:
Balconies: Bild: 20, 21, 69, 102, 141
Pink: Bild 27, 47, 48, 84, 100
( Seefan2012 (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC) )
Why are invalid votes entered after the voting deadline November 30th being scored and not removed? Entries on December 2, 2018: Balconies: Image: 20, 21, 69, 102, 141 Pink: Image 27, 47, 48, 84, 100 (Seefan2012 (discussion) 10:16, 7 DecemberSeefan2012 (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I was not sure where to report this, so I hope this is correct. The image File:Jack_Black_Clock.jpg states it is an image of Jack Black from the movie "The House with a Clock in Its Walls". However, it does not appear to me to be actually him. For example, see this image of him from the same movie. Any help would be appreciated. --Ebyabe (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
There is a large set of videos by Bandai Namco at Category:Videos_by_Bandai_Namco, which apparently were released with a free license. One of the issues arising from this is that users apparently are taking stills from these videos to create free versions of video game cover art, manga pages/logos, etc. Bandai Namco does not own the copyrights to those properties though. Once the still is stored on commons, the users try to replace the non-free equivalent on enwiki.
Looking for information on where to go from here, otherwise Commons may see more stills taken from these videos that have been improperly released. Related discussions: [2] and [3]
We've seen cases of this before where someone managing social media postings for a company picks a free license when uploading content, but there is no intent by the company to release such or they are not the copyright holder of all content in the video. -- ferret (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
No worry on my part, I just don't know where to go on Commons to get the issue looked at, so if that's the better place I'm good. -- ferret (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Well ferret, I suppose if no one wants to weigh in, we can just force a COM:DR to basically make the community come to some decision one way or the other. Lemme know if you want to pull the trigger and I can set all the ducks in a row. GMGtalk14:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: If that would be appropriate for Commons process. I really do think this needs reviewed and decided before people spring into action pulling more stills from these videos. At a quick but not exhaustive scan, Bandai doesn't own Barbie, Witcher, Adventure Time, Dark Souls, Dragonball, JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, One Piece, Sword Art Online, or Warhammer 4k. We need to be sure about this before we say "These are free". -- ferret (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello to everyone I want to know that why B dash has mentioned the above file as no permission since the file was tagged as OK for transferring to Commons.--√Tæ√11:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
The linked source does say that it’s CC-BY (front page, lower right), but doesn’t specify a licence version. Unfortunately I don’t think that’s good enough, especially to override an NC condition on the site as a whole.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@JuTa: I think you are right. I think the user whoever marked the image on en.wiki. as OK didn't saw the source correctly. So, please delete the image immediately.--√Tæ√13:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
HutheMeow – a case study in the school for abusers run by Commons sysops
Look at the recent stuff in user_talk:HutheMeow and compare it to the November case when this user tried to forge licensing data in File:OE-LVK - Austrian Arrows - Fokker 100.jpg (hist • logs • abuse log) using an IP sock. Only me and Jeff_G. reacted to this. Only ŠJů and me reacted to uploading of a hoax by the same user. But when HutheMeow created some ninety deletion requests, Jcb promptly came and blocked him for one month. This is a lesson – you may push forgeries; although some Commoners will fight back, sysops are generally lazy and won’t intervene. Only beware of making actions attracting too much attention. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
You can always draw our attention to "smaller" cases. I don't think admins tend to ignore them, but we are more likely to miss a case if it doesn't attract too much attention. Also please be aware that HutheMeow was not just blocked over creating those DRs, but over doing so despite several clear warnings. Jcb (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
When you delete a file - I now get "$1" has been deleted (undelete). on the "Action complete" page - somehow the file name has not been put into the $1 field. Ronhjones (Talk)02:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I blocked ჯეო (talk·contribs) for copyright violations today. I noticed both today and yesterday that VFC doesn't work as usual for this account. I can't add a message to the talk page. Is it a bug in VFC, or some issue with the account name? Regards, Yann (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
My last edit here was reverted but I would like to try it again: Please rename or even delete all files and categories created by Royalty34 (talk·contribs). Those people are not called "princess". Moreover, Royalty34 is blocked on enWP for abusing multiple accounts. 130.92.254.16422:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Oops sorry for the mistake. I was meant to put the flickr link. Instagram's description points to facebook and facebook's points to flickr.--Roy17 (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Request to delete files in relation to an article that has already been deleted
These pictures of drawings have remained behind the article "Zoran Kesten" that has been deleted on sh.wikipedia.org due to vandalism - inappropriate content for Wikipedia. Since these images are made strictly for this article, please delete them. --Dzoni35 (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello to everyone, I have uploaded the above file but I am not very sure about its license. So, anyone please review it.--√Tæ√06:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Ybroc (talk·contribs) is performing a bulk renaming of categories from English to French names by creating new cats and blanking the previous ones. Could please a French speaking admin tell them that that's not a good idea. Thanks, --Achim (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Greetings administrators, this morning when I copied an OTRS tag from an image to a cropped version of that image, I got a warning that is malformed. (I am using Firefox.) I think this warning is MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-otrs, which looks perfectly fine when I actually go to the page, so presumably the problem is interaction with something else on the edit page. --B (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
It looks like the workflow of the warnings has been changed and there is now a red border around every abusefilter warning. A lot of work to fix all filter warnings by hand (We should at least fix all warnings where wikiborders are used)... --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Illustrations used in Wikipedia articles need to be discussed at the Wikipedia article's talk page. Commons does not supervise the use of its images at other projects. Likewise, neither Commons nor Wikipedia are censored, and this image is being used, so a deletion request would not be merited either. No administrative action is required. De728631 (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This pornographic image is not an encyclopaedic classic
Dear Wikipedia,
Whilst the meaning of the word frot varies from dictionary to dictionary, I am certain that an encyclopaedia should refrain from publishing images of sexual acts, that is, of frot. This is in the interest of setting high standards for the content of your widely read encyclopaedia. The explanation of frot is fine, but I think publishing an image of frot is going a bit too far. Do you agree? Does the meaning of a word like frot need an image? Images are for children and learners and it seems to me that frotting would entice and titillate (or do the opposite). There are plenty of other websites to discover such images, one does not need a highly reputable source.
Signing your posts on talk pages is required by Commons:Signatures policy. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me18:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Empty Category can be deleted ?
A User have create a category (Kategorie:Träger des Friedenspreises des Deutschen Buchhandels) without use. Can this category be deleted.
Ich habe auch das bereits korrigiert (einfach überall per Hand editieren). Das Bild sollte jetzt nur noch im Zusammenhang mit Plessen verwendet werden. De728631 (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Ticket#2018122810002756 — Royal Armouries Museum - Copyright infringement
Hi. OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2018122810002756 alleges to be the original CR owner. Apparently this file was uploaded from this source, tagged with CC By Sa 4.0. However, according to The Royal Armouries Museum the source tooke the file from here, wich is under CR and is requesting deletion of the file ASAP. Talking with another agent, we think user contribs needs a closer look. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ganímedes and Racconish: it looks like the Commons user innocently uploaded the images from Deviant Art - not knowing the license was invalid - but [5] shows 11 other images from that same Deviant Art user and so probably all of those should be deleted. --B (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, ::I think so. No reason to doubt about the user. I'm sure he acts in good fait. Deviant Art uploads I think are the problem. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Clearification note: I have mentioned that there is possibility of copyvio (YT has no creative commons indication) I didn't confirm as I am not a reviewer. Whereas there was a File move request which I Declined as FM was to be elaborated as finance minister whereas the minister has many other office too. (Currently even ministry of cooperate affairs) more information at Arun Jaitley. Thanking you. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ07:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Done Tagged with no permission, user warned. This is a case where the copyright holder may be willing to give a free license. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@Patriccck: Why not change https://youtu.be/cEYLdntVBdM?t=20 to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEYLdntVBdM&t=20, and then publish it yourself? This trick should solve your problem for ever. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Please also note that youtu.be is blacklisted globally, but whitlisted locally at the Czech Wikipedia. That's why you can publish your post to the Czech Wikipedia, but not to Wikimedia Commons. Actually, nobody can publish your post here (even admins can't). You should use the full URL, as the short URLs are blacklisted. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Possibly Unfree Image
File:Donecomsite Logo.jpg is being used on an en wiki article in the draft space that's 98% ripped from the website https://donecomsite.wordpress.com/ and slightly reworded. I can not find a specific copyright notice, and its possible that the person who uploaded it really did create the loge as claimed, however experience shows that in 99% of the cases these kinds of images are in fact copyright images and therefore ineligible for inclusion on the commons. Listing here for someone with a little more image experience than I to follow up on and delete if necessary. (PS: Happy New Year!) TomStar81 (Talk) 07:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
It is not known to me who gave this name to the painting, but it can not be correct.
All houses at that time had a lifting beam at the top of the façade in Amsterdam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo Frings (talk • contribs) 15:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
First a quick look at how T Cells has used his license reviewing right:
In May 2018, T Cells added 23 license reviews. But shortly after, reverted (additional clarification: T Cells reverted himself) 19 of those like File:( TURQUOISE BLEEDING ) (Unsplash).jpg because of User talk:T Cells#Unsplash license reviews. I don't think Fæ was actually right in this case. I think images from Unsplash should be reviewed to verify they were in fact published on Unsplash and to verify they were published before 5 June 2017. So anyway, 4 reviews.
File:Encre-lacouchie2.jpg bad source link. Linked wrong image. Should not have been passed like that. It's also unclear to me if the Flickr account belongs to the artist.
In July, August, September, October, November and December, T Cells added no license reviews. But inactivity is not forbidden, as far as I know.
T Cells thinks it's okay to upload 100+ images of which he is not the author without any link to any kind of permission statement. You are talking about images uploaded by Kaizenify as part of Wikimedia events that I uploaded with the tag {{PD-User}}. You have been told repeatedly that Kaizenify don't have to publish a releasing statement on the front page of a newspaper or website that they are merely to make a statement. Kaizenify has since made that statement here. You have also been told that you can't add a license review tag to these images as there is no link to any external website. Kaizenify is the head of photography for Wikimedia User Group Nigeria and I am aware that he once sent a releasing statement to OTRS. That you still continue to argue blindly with this ridiculous request is worrisome.T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 07:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
"You have been told repeatedly that Kaizenify don't have to publish a releasing statement on the front page of a newspaper or website that they are merely to make a statement."
@T Cells: You have said that repeatedly, and you still don't understand there should be a visible permission statement on your uploads. - Alexis Jazzping plz18:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
You are the one who needs tutorial on how to use a license tag. You have been told repeatedly that you can't add a license review tag to files with no link to a website. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 19:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I've explained repeatedly why I did what I did, including in the section below. But don't change the subject: you still don't seem to understand there should be a visible permission statement on your uploads. - Alexis Jazzping plz01:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Why did you do what you did? Your argument was that there was no source link but you were repeatedly told that a source link is not needed in this case, that Kaizenify don't have to publish a releasing statement on the front page of a newspaper or website that they merely have to make a statement which they have done. If you still don't get it sorry, I can't help you. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 06:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
KeepSpecial:Diff/308030280 and Special:Diff/304129530 are concerning. However, both are resolved now and we can move on. No files need to be deleted. This Flickr account may or may not be fake. But if we are going to treat it as fake, we need evidence. Other links are not that problematic, in my opinion. In particular, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by T Cells does not make me worried. The first batch of files is a common misconception among Wikimedians; I see many Wikimedians who upload Wikimedia-related files without "proper" permission from all over the world. The second batch consists of old uploads. At last, I think a message should be left at Commons:License review/requests to let its regulars know about this discussion. 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: the 7 license reviews are not all problematic, but since there were only 7 in total in June I figured I'd describe them all. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by T Cells is indeed about the first batch. From any regular user I would hardly blink twice. But I expect more from a license reviewer. If it had been just a couple of photos, I could have ignored it. But it's well over a hundred. And if those were just old uploads, it could be ignored. But there are recent examples too. In my opinion, the signal to noise ratio isn't good enough. Pinging @Davey2010, 廣九直通車, Bijay chaurasia, GRuban, AlvaroMolina and Didym who participated in/closed the license reviewer request. (Majora already knows) - Alexis Jazzping plz04:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@T Cells: You didn't do anything wrong in the sense of policy violations. Thus, there is no reason to discuss sanctions like blocks which is what these noticeboards are often used for. - Alexis Jazzping plz18:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Do you have a grasp knowledge of the use of this board? You probably have no idea of what this noticeboard is used for, if the only reasonable conclusion you could draw from the use of administrative noticeboard is a block issuing den. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Administrative noticeboards are often used to discuss possible sanctions and policy violations when it concerns users. In that regard, this thread is a bit of an odd duck. It's about a user (you), but not about sanctions. I don't like your condescending tone. - Alexis Jazzping plz01:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: I said "T Cells added 23 license reviews. But shortly after, reverted 19 of those", I see no way to interpret that in any other way than T Cells reverting himself. Nevertheless I further clarified it as apparently it's confusing to some. - Alexis Jazzping plz18:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Note that in 2016 T_Cells injected{{PD-old-70-1923}} to a photo by an unknown photographer. As Seriki Williams Abass died in 1919, it isn’t obvious that the photographer died before 1946. This happened, firstly, more than two years ago and secondly some dirty job may be delegated to T_Cells anyway, but T_Cells’s performance should be routinely checked by trusted people, and not Alexis_Jazz alone. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Keep - Other than the 2nd-licence reviewing I'm genuinely not actually seeing anything problematic here ?,
Inregards to TC adding licences and then reverting himself I would generally see that as "Oops I made a mistake, my bad, i'll self-revert" (IE I would Assume Good Faith but that's just me),
@Davey2010: Indeed the reverting isn't an issue (although actually he shouldn't have listened to Fæ as these images do need a review, but I'm not going to knock T Cells for following instructions from an experienced user), but I just described all license reviews. It was a short list, so why not describe them all. I've detailed the four from May below. - Alexis Jazzping plz01:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
For the sake of being complete, I looked up the four non-reverted reviews from May:
First link - Completely agree this shouldn't have been passed like this (I'm assuming TC didn't actually look at the source ?)
Second link - I'm not really sure if this did need checking or not
Third link - I would say that review is fine as both appear to be the same and there doesn't appear to be any rotations?
Fourth link - Agree one check is fine
In conclusion I would say a few of the Licence Reviews are sloppy but for the most part they seem generally fine, That being said they shouldn't be sloppy so I would ask T Cells to take a bit more care when reviewing these and make they check each and every file is checked properly but for now I feel revocation is OTT atm. –Davey2010Talk02:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
@Davey2010: I described all license reviews he did in May, with or without issues, because there were only four. But also see T Cells' response from 06:03, 4 January 2019 above: he still seems to insist it is perfectly acceptable to upload photos from someone else without any kind of visible permission statement. He says "that they merely have to make a statement which they have done", but that only happened after the DR was filed. (and the statement still doesn't seem to cover all the files) - Alexis Jazzping plz22:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I was referring to a case in which a fellow Wikipedian (and a contributor on this project) releases their works into public domain and uploaded here by another user with the tag {{PD-User}}. In such case they don't have to publish a statement on external website. If you aren't too sure weather they indeed released the works under the claimed license, you don't have to be combative in your approach. All you need to do is to leave a message on their talk page requesting a statement to confirm the claim. You failed to do this and blindly claiming that copyright has been violated until another clueful user pinged Kaizenify to confirm. Considering that you are desperately misreprenting my statement, I am not comfortable responding to you again. Bye! T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 08:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
@T Cells: considering there are four keep-votes, it seems likely you will remain a license reviewer. But I want to ask you to comment on license reviews above, specifically:
As well as the uploading of photos from Kaizenify and SDK Olobe without any visible permission statement. If you can explain in your own words what went wrong in those cases, that should take any remaining doubts away. - Alexis Jazzping plz01:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment Even thou, I wasn't too comfortable with Alexis Jazz's approach, I'll like to respond to questions related to the three images linked above. I was dead wrong for passing the three images. The first image was incorrectly tagged as {{PD-Author}} instead of {{PD-MAGov}}. Thus, it should not have been passed. The sources provided for the other two files were linked to different images and should not have been passed as well. I apologize, I would be more careful and diligent in the future. Thank you for pointing this out. Regards. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 09:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. As far as those three license reviews are concerned, it's clear to me you understand the issues with those. I'm still a bit concerned regarding your uploads though, as you still don't seem to understand it's not okay to upload someone else's work without a visible permission statement. - Alexis Jazzping plz15:34, 5 January 2019 (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.
Alexis Jazz is a prolific contributor but his behavior is not only problematic but irritating to other users. I noticed this user last year. Although, I can't remember my first encounter with them but I remembered opposing their request for LR right. I opposed their request in good faith but guess that was where the trouble began. In this thread where they were accused of trashing EXIF and disrupting DR, Steinsplitter drew the attention of the community to three essays written by this user (Commons:Do disrupt Commons to illustrate a pointCommons:Assuming worst case copyright, Commons:Everipedia) and was nomimated for deletion by me and Steinspltter. This is where I got into trouble with this user. In an attempt to revenge, they created 3 attack pages that included my name, Colin and Jcb. This was reported by Jcb here and the attack pages where deleted. When I was pinged in the discussion, I pointed out that I have nothing against them but they responded " Things you have said and done certainly make it look like you have something against me. Glad to hear that you don't. . Thus, I assumed good faith and moved on. Yesterday, at my RfA Alexis opposed with the exact wording I used in my oppose vote in their request for license reviewer right (oppose. No. Thank you ). It was then I noticed that their appearance was nothing but an attempt to revenge. They quickly went to dig out my old uploads including images taken by user:Kaizenify which I uploaded with {{PD-User}} that they need permission from Kaizenify. Bizzairely, they went ahead to tag these images with license reviewer tag even thou there was no link to any website. 1989 told them that tagging these images as such was unwise and I also repeatedly told them that using the LR tag in this case was disruptive but they responded with a threat to remove my LR right. Kaizenify was pinged and they confirmed that I was correct to upload the images with {{PD-User}}. Alexis Jazz is obviously not acting in good faith and I think the behavior demonstrated by Alexis could drive good editors away and as such not healthy for a project that rely on collaboration to grow. I don't know how to best deal with this kind of user. Thus, I'll leave it for the community to decide the best way to deal with this. Happy new year everyone. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 06:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose any action against User:Alexis Jazz. I am aware of the whole incident. User:Alexis Jazz' actions were right, but may be not optimal. (why LR tags?) My take is that User:Alexis Jazz cares about the project (maybe the "real" problem is that they care too much). Those files were, indeed, in need of a permission statement. User:Alexis Jazz took time to find and categorize them and helped to sort them out. Their actions were in good faith, in my opinion. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: LR tags exactly because of everything that's happening now. I discovered those images (the first two I discovered anyway, back then I didn't check the full history) the very same day that T Cells nominated my essays for deletion. If I had started a DR that day, it would certainly have been seen as a revenge action. I tagged them for LR so a license reviewer would deal with it, because I was too involved to do it myself at that moment. It was the lesser evil. - Alexis Jazzping plz18:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@T Cells: "irritating to other users", "I think the behavior demonstrated by Alexis could drive good editors away and as such not healthy for a project that rely on collaboration to grow."
We all receive thanks from those who appreciates our contributions. Thus, no big deal. The fact that you still believe I'm your hater is your motivation for the request above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T Cells (talk • contribs) 05:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
"I opposed their request in good faith but guess that was where the trouble began."
You opposed it by saying "No. Thank you.", no suggestion for how I could improve, no explanation of what your concerns were, nothing. So that wasn't great. - Alexis Jazzping plz18:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
You exhibited the same behavior you criticize others for. If it's not great as you are claiming now, why did you do same thing? Why did you used the same opposing rationale (No. Thank you) ? This is a definition of a revenge vote or at the very least assumption of bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T Cells (talk • contribs) 05:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
"and was nomimated for deletion by me and Steinspltter."
Actually you and Fæ. Fæ's DR at least had some merit and I would have suggested to alter that essay, but the DR was closed much faster than usual for cases like these and the closure caught me by surprise. Your nominations however had no valid rationale.
If those pages were not attack pages, what were they? Why were the pages deleted as such? The pages were deleted as threat or attack pages. The deleting admin was wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by T Cells (talk • contribs) 05:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
That was 11 November. Your RfA was 2 days ago. Even I can't travel back in time. And yes, when you apply for admin, you can expect people to start digging through your contributions. - Alexis Jazzping plz18:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
If you don't understand how Commons handles permissions and copyright, you shouldn't be a license reviewer. That doesn't have anything to do with threats. - Alexis Jazzping plz18:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Is this not a classical case of the pot calling the kettle black? The same condescending tone you criticized above is what you are using here. BTW... I'll repeat again, go and educate yourself on how a license review tag is used. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 05:56, 4 January 2019 (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.
Most users will be aware that Fæ uploads a lot of images harvested from other websites. He also performs a lot of automated edits to existing file pages. The Commons:Bots policy page defines a bot as "an automated program that carries out repetitive tasks that would be tedious to do manually". It requires "All bots running on Wikimedia Commons must have advance permission to do so" and "Bots must be run from a separate user account from that used for general editing by the bot operator". Although Fae has a bot account User:Faebot, bot operations are routinely performed with his main account.
I don't understand why bot operations are permitted on Fae's main account, nor why both Fae and Faebot's activities seem to be "whatever Fae wants to do". Fae's User:Fæ/Wayback task was created yesterday and the first the community knew about it was a comment deep within an existing discussion where Fae was seeking exemption from licence review because the community do not seem able to keep pace with his uploads.
Can we clarify if Fae's automated activities with his main account should be classified as bot activity and moved over to another bot account. Also clarify why Faebot seems to be given a permanent "do whatever you want" permission when shifting to new activities. I think it would improve transparency if Fae restricted his main account to edits made while personally logged in and operating the website UI as a human. Possibly a few distinct bot accounts would help identify activities, such as upload separate from link rot edits, etc. -- Colin (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
For anyone interested in the actual text of COM:Bots, which is a Wikimedia Commons help page but not a true community agreed Wikimedia Commons policy, this states (emphasis mine):
COM:Bots: "Semi-automated tools (e.g. Javascript tools) are not normally considered to be bots and do not require a separate account, but some users choose to use a separate account for non-bot but high-speed editing."
The addition of Wayback links is not a high-speed task, neither is it controversial, but it is covered by the current approved scope of Faebot if I want to use Faebot for it. Following the Agile norms for larger bot tasks, I am testing out the process on smaller collections using my main account, before considering how to let larger collections run through a more stable process using Faebot. This is way I have gone about these types of project for several years, nobody has ever suggested this was a misuse of accounts for Wikimedia Commons. The project page I created for it states:
User:Fæ/Wayback: "This is an image source link housekeeping task, semi-automated by a supporting pywikibot script"
Faebot was approved seven years ago, with a fairly open ended GLAM related brief. In the 2012 approval discussion I stated:
"... the bot is intended for various GLAM related media improvement jobs related to fixing information, links, templates, OTRS tickets as well as helping with the ins and outs of GLAM related batch uploads"
Following normal practice for bots, User:Faebot explains the scope of the bot and more notable tasks are logged on that page. This already includes the statement:
User:Faebot: Wayback addition of Wayback Machine links for selected large GLAM related batch uploads.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am very familiar with bot related policies and practices on this project and others, having been part of the tools/automation and bot community for over a decade. As customary, I would be happy to consider advice on how to do things differently, from those with related experience, though years of doing stuff the way I currently do, has established a long precedent for this project in its own right plus "we have better things to do than being over bureaucratic".
It is interesting that the top of Commons:Bots has a link "Bot policy and list" which links back to itself. If it is not "policy" then that should be fixed. It seems the requirements for pre-authorisation are deemed bureaucratic, at least when it comes to Fae. If there is some way we can determine if a bot is "uncontroversial" and therefore not requiring of pre-authorisation, perhaps that should be stated so in the page, which is currently absolute in its requirements for authorisation by the community. But bureaucracy aside, I see no reason why Fae is running the Wayback bot in both his normal and bot accounts. There is good reason to use a separate bot account: it can be blocked without shame to the user. It also clearly separates activities for which one could blame the bot rather vs activities that any human doing might be regarded as crazy vandalism. Further it declutters the user account contributions to focus on what they have actually personally contributed. Rather than dismiss this section, I think there is some need for folk to address those issues. What rationale is there for Fae to use his user account for bot activity? These User:Fae bot activities aren't Javascript but Python programs on his home PC running largely unsupervised (I sincerely hope they are largely unsupervised, or else Fae has my sympathies and best wishes for a more socially active 2019). -- Colin (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Deletion discussions open since October 2018
Hi, if someone could close these two discussions, I would appreciate it:
I'm supposed to be on wikibreak and had my French Wikipedia account blocked to help me BUT I've shifted my activity to Wikimedia Commons instead and didn't really take my wikibreak yet. Could you, please, block my Commons account until February 1st, 2019 please?
Happy new year to every one and good contributions.
Not done@Lacrymocéphale: With respect, this is a bit ridiculous. A cursory look at your global contributions shows you're presently editing on enwiki as well. It is not the responsibility of each individual project to block you to help you take your break. It is your responsibility to be accountable to yourself and your actions. If you find you are unable to exert that self-control, add en:Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer to your global.js. Please try to find the self-control within you before resorting to having to force yourself off the site using javascript. Best of luck. Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) @Panam2014: I can’t see any difference between those two names; please check. Regardless, renaming doesn’t require sysop action unless something needs deleting to make way for it (as in the section above). Just tag the file with {{Rename}} for filemover attention; see also COM:MOVE.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I have hidden the original uploader, and closed the DR. If everyone agrees with this solution, we can do this for all the files. This concerns more than one file, so it is better to have the discussion on a board rather than in a DR. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, just do that. Don't forget to revert the delinker when you undelete the images. Lot's of places were affected.
Maybe best to have an American (USA) admin do this? That would make it a lot easier with any possible follow up lawsuits..... Multichill (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Deletions should not be done out of process. Your rationale and phrasing here, makes you appear to be acting directly as a (pro bono?) attorney for the accused. There is no evidence that following the normal Commons policy would make any difference to the legal case, and we are entering muddy water if lobbying by representatives of someone caught up in legal action can be demonstrated to make a difference to the outcome on this project. A valid defence is "I have no control or influence over Wikimedia Commons hosting policies, you need to contact Wikimedia Foundation's Lawyers if they need to comply with any legal judgement." --Fæ (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Since he uploaded the files with his real name, I don't think "I have no control or influence over Wikimedia Commons" would hold any water in court. Every user is legally responsible for the files uploaded and the edits made, whatever are Commons policies. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
@Raymond: I agree that urgent action was needed, but this was very badly handled. Instead of deleting, you should have hidden the content, or request another admin to do it. This would be much less work, avoiding to revert Delinker, and overall be much more inconspicuous. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Exactly what policy is being followed that supports hiding records of these uploads and skipping the deletion procedure? Administrators are not lawyers, nor are all administrators trusted with Oversight authority. Policy actions must be kept separate from legal complaints. --Fæ (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
@Fæ: What is your point exactly? That the files should not be restored, or that we wait for WMF Legal, which will not happen before Monday anyway? Regards, Yann (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I asked a perfectly relevant and simple question, not a point, "what policy is being followed that supports hiding records of these uploads and skipping the deletion procedure?" Taking sysop actions when that question is not answerable, means that the actions are being taken without complying to policy. If the project policies are wrong or insufficient, then the process is to raise a proposal, not to take non-transparent actions without consensus. --Fæ (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Already mentioned above. BTW it would be useful to have a summary of the judgment in English. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
AFAIK, as of yet there is only the above linked press release by the court, not the full text of the court's ruling. --Túrelio (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
The second is between the museum and the uploader (supported by the WMDE) about the pictures in Category:Images subject to Reiss Engelhorn Museum lawsuit 1Category:Images subject to Reiss Engelhorn Museum lawsuit 2. In this case the highest not the really highest, because we has a constitutional court, but this isn't important here court of the Federal Republic of Germany desided at the 20th Dec 2018. The full text isn't aviable, but will be published here. At the day of the decicion the court publish a press release. There the press office of the court write that fotographs of public domain paintings very often has a Lichtbildschutz (50 years). It diceded also that the uploader infrige the AGB (something like the Standard form contract) of the museum and that because of this the museum could request to don't upload them as damages by the fotographer who infriges the AGB. So the court refuse the revision by the uploader again this court decision.
It seems hard to imagine that volunteers not needing to act like lawyers, would be thought disrespectful to anyone. --Fæ (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: - I think, hat you are doing here is very problematic. And don't think, just because you live outside Germany will protect you. You live in the EU. In the Moment, not longer Andreas but you are the person that is responsible, they will come for you. And in the EU a border will not protect you. This all despite the disrespect for a judgment of the highes German court (for this). You can think, the judgment is not right - I also do so. But I and even you have to respect this! The way you act at first against a judgment, and the second against the decision of an other Admin, I see as a big problem. Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
@Marcus Cyron: Yes, I am not in Europe, so I should be OK. It is possible to hide all information regarding the original uploader, so he should be fine too. I think this creates a dangerous precedent. What next? If a (name a country with poor human rights record) court wants to delete files because it doesn't like them, what do we do? Anyway, if these images should be permanently deleted, this requires a community decision. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
If a (name a country with poor human rights record) court wants to delete files because it doesn't like them, what do we do? - sorry Yann, we're talkin' about Germany. We talkin' about a serious judgment. With which right YOU secide, you are allowed to ignore this? And why YOU think you can decide, that Andreas can be held in this serious situation? Your deletion of the uploaders name means nothing, because his name is written in the courts papers. Your lack of respect for your fellow Wikimedians and a court judgment is in my eyes more than problematic. I thin we need to talk about your ability to stay Administrator on Commons. Marcus Cyron (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry Marcus, but I can't follow you. Several people have already complained that the deletions were out of process. I have tried to find the best solution for protecting Andreas while keeping the files in Commons. BTW I have requested feedback from Andreas and Wikimedia Legal by email (no answer so far). Ultimately either the files will be deleted by COM:OFFICE, or the case will be decided by a community decision. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Could this problem affect other pictures taken in Germany as well? For instance, the Deutsche Bahn explicitly forbids photographing in its stations (and trains as well, as far as I know) and just makes an exemption for private usage under certain conditions. On Commons we cannot impose a restriction to private usage, so Deutsche Bahn may sue all uploaders of such pictures. Should we post a warning about that? -- Renardo la vulpo (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Clearly the museum has been extremely mischievous in its targeting a well-meaning individual, but that doesn't mean we should rush to personal acts of summary (supposed) justice: it would be a dangerous precedent (cf. wmfblog:2018/04/18/greece-legal-case-ended/). If the Wikimedia Foundation is bound to delete something, they will tell us. If the user's lawyer advises them to try to get the photos deleted, they can open a deletion request asking for a courtesy deletion, but I don't see anything of the like. Nemo19:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: Yes, edit history needs to be hidden as well. I am working on it, be patient. Actually, Andreas should not have nominated the files himself. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually these have additional issues: the uploader's name is available in the description, so this should be edited and hidden as well. So, as I am not sure what to do with that, I will wait for an answer from Andreas or the WMF for restoring these files. I only edited the files which were not deleted. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: The issue with uploader I don't really see, because for example in the first court decision against the WMF "Andreas P." [10] was mentioned and we had mentioned him very often in this context, second in all court decisions it wasn't disputabel that he is the first uploader of the files, so why hide this? Habitator terrae🌍14:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: I thing, there are no problem with this files exept that Andreas isn't allow to upload them. But other persons says that there are problems because the using of this files support the illegal action of fotograph this against the contract. Habitator terrae🌍14:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
First. I believe this is a matter between private parties and that we have little business to make a community decision about allowing a courtesy deletion. If the uploader wants the files gone we should respect their wishes. If not, we should follow policy as always. And policy says the same as it always does about excepting public domain works: “that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work.” With our policy regarding PD-art being a notable exception. We have to remind ourselves that most of us are not lawyers. We are merely novices who have little or none legal training in relevant legal areas.
This said. In my personal opinion the community and especially the WMF (if one lobbies in a country one should respect that countries law and legal system) should hold the utmost respect for court ruling/verdicts/judgements from countries like Germany. Keep in mind that disrespecting a judgement that protects the rights of a museum – an important stakeholder – is basically the same as telling our partners that we don’t care about their rights but that we only care about being free content activists, no matter the costs on the long term.
I understand why Yann finds this a slippery slope. However, let’s cross that bridge when we get there. We are talking about a judgment from one of the countries that makes the greatest effort to protect human rights. And this isn’t about limiting free speech or something similar but this is about a court judgment protecting a museums rights. Natuur12 (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
If we started cherry-picking which jurisdictions to follow based on their human rights track, we should start ignoring USA law tomorrow. Let's not be silly or we'll soon be in "will someone think of the children" territory. Nemo18:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Yann already stated that his action was only a temporary solution until we or WMF take a final decision. So let us start discussing the merits and demerits on keeping these files. One demerit I see as Yann mentioned above is the deletion may create a bad precedent we have to honor every court decisions neglecting our policies. On the other side, I see the importance of maintaining the trust of our volunteers that we will help them to solve the issues if they made a mistake. Here it seems an volunteer violated the local law on their attempt to provide contents to our project and now they are in trouble. They definitely deserves our consideration. Another point is that we need to bring the confidence of the institutions like museums that we will act generously if they made a mistake (like accidentally release some contents without proper review). Otherwise more volunteers and institutions will step back if they feel that they be caught in trouble in future. In summary, we need to weight the pros and cons thoroughly and act wisely. Jee03:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm a bit late to this conversation, but wanted to share some thoughts from WMF Legal on the case. First, I do want to say thanks to everyone that was helping out on this over the weekend. I think the court did not fully understand the technical options that the user who originally uploaded the pictures had. Those of you trying to figure out the best way to assist a person in that situation is really nice of everyone involved.
From our perspective at WMF Legal, there still has not been a judgment in our case, so we're not yet at a point where we would get involved in changing any content on Commons and do not plan to remove anything at this time. When the judgment comes out, we'll review it and determine what we need to do or whether there's a legal option for us to appeal or challenge the judgment if needed. This case also concerns two types of pictures: those taken by the user and freely licensed under CC licenses, and those taken by a museum photographer that were scanned and uploaded to Wikipedia. It's possible that the judgment in the Foundation's case will be different for each type, so we'll have to see what happens. This case is also likely to be quite limited to this specific set of pictures. Other pictures, depending on how they're created and where they come from, may either come with proper licensing and permissions, be allowed under the law, or fail to meet even Germany's lower threshold of creativity standard for simple copyrights and therefore be public domain. Our approach is to evaluate specific requests when we receive them, since each case is different, and we continue to support the position that faithful reproductions of 2-D public domain artwork are themselves public domain in most cases.
-Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I only meant to upload the current version of this file. As a courtesy, could an administrator please delete my original upload? Thanks. - Illustratedjc (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
11 support (73%) (including myself)
4 oppose (27%) (Bidgee, Fæ, 4nn1l2 and Speravir. Bidgee, 4nn1l2 and Speravir only supported the proposal partially, which I'm counting as oppose.)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. - Alexis Jazzping plz 20:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Kindly request an administrator close discussion and remove the deletion tag on my own work File:Kimberly_Kowal_Arcand_at_TEDx_Providence_Rhode_Island.jpg
My own work (image) was mistakenly tagged for deletion. A discussion was held and my image was decided to be kept by other Wiki editors.
Please speedy close-keep these DRs for redirects so the redirect can start working again. A filemover (CaribDigita) suddenly started blanking redirects, followed by deletion nominations because the page was empty - well duh. - Alexis Jazzping plz 0p7:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Admins please feel free to review. These are all redirects that are not actually being used and are actually all misspelled. Please feel free to delete if you see fit. Please feel free to advise if Speedy delete "Misspelled" would be more appropriate forum to discuss instead. Caribbean in any language is always "ONE r" TWO bs. CaribDigita (talk) 07:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@CaribDigita: There is no reason to delete these redirects. External sites may be using them, they don't bother anyone but you and it's adding something completely trivial to the workload of already overworked admins with a massive backlog. - Alexis Jazzping plz08:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I placed it for discussion for anybody to discuss. If you don't like me airing it for discussion, I don't know what to tell you. For the record I did look under "What Links Here" prior to nominating for discussion. CaribDigita (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Not done. Nothing urgent is here. Regular deletion requests are open for everybody to discuss. No need to close the requests prematurely. Taivo (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
For the record. You requested that I stop unlinking the misspelled redirect images from the actual files:/images they're linked to and I've ceased doing that. My intention as I explained separately: was to make sure the actual images were not deleted in error as part of the delete discussion request I put up. My aim was not to delete any content at this time save for correcting instances of the misspelled "Caribean", "Carribean", "Carribbean", et. al. In terms of your query about external links. That's also covered by the "Special Pages" tool [11]. All I was doing is cleaning up this misspelled content which has continued to grow. I even found two Wiki logos that were misspelled and orphaned that I attached to Cat:Caribbean for the time being. My aim is not to do anything destructive of WikiProject Caribbean but in fact is to clean it up. P.S. I do acknowledge you for your help after our conversation of your assistance in revising many articles with misspelled Caribbean as well. You certainly were far quicker than myself and I extend kudos to you for that. Again the reasoning I had unlinked them is I did not-not-not want to have someone click the link come to the photo, basically sum up the image as one 'worthless' in their minds eye and delete all two off. That was not me intent only to clean up misspelled "Caribbean" across the projects because it keeps growing each year steadily and eventually one instance misspelled like on a map can begin to carry over to other things as a seemingly authoritatively seeming source of correct spelling. I cannot find it now but under one of the French isles there were three or four misspelled "Caribbean" images and that then translated to the person in French seemingly thinking that was correct spelling and they placed it onto WIKIData which goes on other projects now too, and I cannot now find that WikiData as I was supposed to come back and clean that up for them. CaribDigita (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@CaribDigita: While your point against this particular spelling mistake, especially when it carries across languages, is well made and I’d agree that it is more than just a trivial typo, deleting misspelled redirects in ineffective and counter productive. On the other hand, there are many, many thousands of undescribed and under-categorized Caribbean photographs you could be working on. (Also, please note that Special:LinkSearch looks for outgoing links not incoming ones; it’s possible to search for those, but it probably needs an external search engine. The WMF servers may have historical data on remote hits on Commons file redirect pages, but I don’t know how to reach those.) -- Tuválkin✉✇14:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@CaribDigita: when it comes to redirects, in an ideal world they are completely unused. But in reality, they may be linked from an article or talk page on Wikipedia, Wikivoyage or another project. Or it can be linked from an external site that is completely unrelated to Wikimedia, like a blog, forum, news website, etc. None of the methods you used can detect any of that, but we don't want to break their links. In fact, if someone links File:1955 Packard Carribbean convert VA g.jpg, wouldn't you want them to be redirected to File:1955 Packard Caribbean convert VA g.jpg so they can see the correct spelling there? Redirects are like traffic barriers: ideally nobody ever needs them. But we have them anyway, just in case. - Alexis Jazzping plz15:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
A point to retain: This user is skilled enough to cause all this but is still befuddled by Wikidata’s UI, which was designed as something more “intuitive” and “simpler” than wikitext, with a side serving of nose thumbing — <sarcasm>and it’s clearly working just fine.</sarcasm> -- Tuválkin✉✇14:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Question: Could the DR notification templates be moved from the redirect pages to the talk pages of the redirects, so that the redirects will work until the DR is decided? --C.Suthorn (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Support needed to create a test user with almost no privileges
I'm working on the Android Wikimedia Commons App. We are wanting to create more automated tests to our code to improve the stability of the app and allow us to safely refactor old code.
To do this, I think it would be very beneficial to have a testing user account (maybe multiple) either here or on Beta Commons. This user should not be able to change their own password, upload images or edit any pages (including their own talk page). Essentially, just be able to view their own uploads. This is so we can safely share the username and password publicly so new contributors can run the tests. The app does check if a user is banned, and doesn't log in, so ideally the user wouldn't be. However it might be possible to write a workaround if this is the only possible way to do it.
Ideally there'd be two users:
One with no uploads
One with some uploads (I can provide real media which I haven't uploaded yet for this account, so not just dummy uploads for real commons)
Apologies if this is the wrong place to be asking, if so please tell me where I should ask.
Hi, AFAIK, we currently can't have an account which works that way. Either an account is enabled, so it can edit anything which is not protected, or it is blocked, and it can't even log in. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: by default, blocked users can edit their own talk page, so they must be able to log in. I don't know about accounts that are blocked and are not allowed to edit their own talk page.
You could also block them while keeping their talk page access, then protect the talk page so only admins can edit it. Still, there's the password issue. - Alexis Jazzping plz16:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Three ideas: assign a bot flag and login with the bot password. 2) enable 2FA on the account, and have the second factor handled by someone from the app development team, so that users of the account need assistence from this person to login. 3) block access to special pages with a filter. --C.Suthorn (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: @C.Suthorn: @Yann: Thanks you all your rapid response on this - from what I can understand from your responses it might be possible by doing all three of the following:
Blocking the account indefinitely. Have the reason link to this and Github issue #2226 so other admins don't unblock. While blocking, enable the options "Prevent user from sending email" and "Prevent this user from editing their own talk page while blocked".
Block the account from accessing pages in the Special namespace (so they are unable to change the password)
Assign a bot flag
For safety, I think it's just worth doing this on Beta Commons for now. Maybe we can expand to 'real Commons' after making sure this system does work. If this won't work, please do explain why. Otherwise, please can you make these changes for me on the accounts AndroidTesterNoMedia and AndroidTesterMedia on Beta Commons.
The German headline of the structured data label in the upload wizard has the same name as the regular description field, only the information about the field makes clear witch field is for what. Both fields are titled with "Beschreibung" at files the field is titled with "Bildtext", what is ok but not a common used word an alternative could be "Kurzbeschreibung" or just "Label" or "Titel". --GPSLeo (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Greetings! Please take note against the User:Dr Samkiv Kumar, he continuously threatens me by abusive hindi words in Devnagri script. Recently I blocked him from hiwiki for his inappropriate behaviour and edits. Now he writes messages on my user page for urging unblock and his recent abusive attack is here in hindi language (This file is uploaded by me). I saw that he also uploaded many unfree copyright files here. Please take appropriate action.--Prongs3105:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Bonjour,
J'ai déposé des images du monument aux morts du 8ème Régiment de Chasseurs à cheval, dont je suis l'auteur et donc le propriétaire.
Pour des raisons personnelles, je souhaite que TOUTES mes images soient supprimées de votre base de données
Merci d'avance
Michel BOUZY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michel BOUZY (talk • contribs) 09:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@Racconish: I had spotted one, but the upload date was somewhere in 2018. We'll have to search some more to find images that were uploaded to Pixabay after the new license went into effect. - Alexis Jazzping plz13:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Caveat: images uploaded before Jan 8, 2019. If an image is taken on Jan 7, and uploaded on Jan 9, then it still would not be usable. GMGtalk14:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: The Pixabay license should be updated to say that images taken/uploaded after January 9, 2019 are now not free like Racconish states. Can someone update the license? Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I think you should follow the example at {{Unsplash}}. The wording can be identical, with different dates and links. It is particularly important to warn reviewers about images uploaded after that date, which may still be valid if the uploaded date is ok. -- Colin (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
There’s a problem: The construct {{I18n/theF|Pixabay}} {{I18n/license}} presumes two things which are not true for many cases:
That in all languages with M/F grammatical gender the word for "license" is feminine. While this is true for most (?) Latinate languages it may not be so for others (etymology and cognateness are of no help here as words with the same origin and meaning may have mismatching genders across languages — e.g., from LAT:mare⚲ we got both FRA:mer♀ and POR:mar♂).
That the first word is a modifier, here the name of the service, preceding the second word, "license". This works well for English adjective nouns, but not for all other cases. It is needed (if it doesn’t already exist) an {{I18n}} module or template that accepts a modifier and a base word and juggles them around differently for different languages:
As an experimental aide to future verification, the earliest Wayback Machine archives are being added to images with pixabay.com sources. This is turning up a number of images where the link is probably missing, in some cases giving a vague link to the user page rather than a specific image page on pixabay. The following gallery is being automatically generated if anyone wants to visit these to improve sourcing:
An issue I'm unsure about. If an image of lower resolution was uploaded here before the cutoff date, am I right in assuming the full resolution copy still on Pixabay would not be eligible to be copied here? An example is File:Macau Old Street.jpg. — Huntster (t@c)08:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Huntster: Creative Commons is irrevocable. Imho, you can still upload images that are not here if they were published before the cutoff date. - Alexis Jazzping plz11:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I know it is irrevocable. I must clarify that I was thinking about situations where a higher resolution file existing prior to the cutoff could not be verified. I'm sure Archive.org will catch many cases, but perhaps not all. I vaguely recall a discussion years ago about the legality of licensing only specific resolutions of an image, but do not remember the resolution. — Huntster (t@c)11:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Huntster: I do remember. Licensing different resolutions differently is considered legally impossible, but if the author uploads to Commons themselves and requests Commons only hosts a lower resolution copy, we generally respect that. - Alexis Jazzping plz13:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz and translators of {{Discontinued free license}}: Pixabay has not only images, but also videos, so images has to be replaced by files (already done in German translation btw). And instead of adding it to every Pixabay language sub template it would have been more easy to alter the layout template. — Speravir– 02:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: under which conditions does Special:Contributions show deleted edits? Can you provide these conditions? Note the name of this noticeboard and heading for this thread. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
hi, a while back we had a dispute about some images of mine and i had uploaded an X image in the hopes the file would be removed. anyway, the dispute was settled and all is well but the x image remains on my conribution page and i would like it removed.
Also, the images for JamesRiver.tif and Lake at Dusk.jpg appear twice for some reason. No big deal but would like to clean up the page.
Thanks, paul.
the page in question:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Paulisawoof&ilshowall=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulisawoof (talk • contribs) 16:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
So what? The half-time of uranium-235 is only 704 My, but there is yet enough 235U to power fission reactors nowadays, about 5 billions years after the formation of Solar System. Detection of copyvio is a Poisson-like random process, hence no wonder that some 1% of copyvio can stay here for eleven years. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Túrelio. To be fair, Infrogmation did spot it and tag it with {{no source since}} within a couple of hours of the initial upload. Tineye and reverse image search in Google Images weren't available yet at that time, so finding evidence of copyright violations was harder, and we relied a lot more on seven-day problem tags for tagging suspicious files back then. I don't remember when we started getting scripts and gadgets with options to automatically put tagged files and talk pages on your watchlist, but I think it was later, so unless you remembered to manually watchlist every file you tagged, it was pretty easy for uploaders to just sweep problems under the rug like that, and those problem tags gave them more time to do that than {{copyvio}}. —LX (talk, contribs)23:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
just a query
The Duplicates page - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Duplicate - now has over 1k of items - which no-one seems to be touching, I am wondering if I have missed something, but I might have limited understanding - is PNG export of a JPG-File a valid reason in the eyes of others to delete the item? Hope someone can explain either the lack of deletions of these items, or help with understanding of what is going on? thanks JarrahTree (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Apart from your specific question, processing duplicates is not an urgent task, as opposed to deleting copyvios. As admins are volunteers, who work in their spare time, this may take some time. --Túrelio (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
normally duplicates is empty after some enthusiastic admin jumps in - seems strange (despite the answers) that it should sit so long like that JarrahTree (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Deletion requests - how long do they take to close?
Hello all,
I nominated two items for deletion on 2nd January but so far haven't been actioned - I also note the majority of deletion requests are also still open. Out of curiosity, how long does it take before closure? I have nominated stuff for the past and it has never taken this long.
Also of note the log page here has broken formatting - it is not showing any deletion requests past 9th January.
Thanks all. Nightfury (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Backlogs are longer now than they have been in the past. I'm waiting on one nomination from August and three from September. The broken formatting is the result of too many transclusions (templates and subpages included in the page in the same way as templates). —LX (talk, contribs)09:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Another editor is anxious that there should be no classification of Belgian coaches in this category. The category was created to fit with the pattern of categories of other similarly constituted countries. I acknowledge they most probably will not have had this (English) name in Belgium but the category relates to a type of coach, not the name given to it in its native country. As I type he has extended his concerns to another category. He has declined to discuss the matter on his own talk page and on the category's talk page. Please may we have a decision or mediation. Eddaido (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Rijksmuseum overwrites
Overwriting of Rijks photographs has been a long running issue, with discussions about overwrites for this collection in the AN archives. Mr.Nostalgic (talk·contribs·logs·block log) has been on a programme of overwriting the entire collection with the latest high resolution files from the Rijks. Unfortunately these appear to have different colour profiles, SK-A-550 appears quite different to the original 2014 upload, and some have quite visibly different lighting, SK-A-3979 is an extreme case due to the way light reflects off the gilding.
L.S. The files I upload are the new files under the "SK-"number of the Rijksmuseum, of the direct link which is added to the lower res picture. So if the desision is that i should make them seperate pictures, than i think that at least the link should be removed, since it is not right anymore. But since it is the current picture of the Rijksmuseum, with added color pallet shown at there website. It would be odd to asume it is not in the 'right' colors! Having said that, i realize i am not an expert and i do not want to abuse the setup of the project. As said on my own page, if somebody thinks a revert is in place, i do not have any objections. The advantage of uplloading them with the same name is that at least they are all easely tracable and if some user then wants to see the higher resolution even with different colors, it will be much easier.
COM:Overwrite talks about a "same file", with changes such as resolution or alterations. While it mentions not to overwrite for "Different files relating to the exact same object (e.g. a different photo of Michelangelo's David)" I think it isn't clear enough for artworks, which is often an issue. People think that because it is the same artwork that a new version is appropriate, but if it is a different photo/scan of that artwork then a new file on Commons is required. Here it is a bit complicated because it appears the museum has updated their edition of the file (at least that's how it looks) so the sourcing remains accurate and the filename remains accurate. I think we should host two files as they are two separate photos, and the file naming should indicate the newer one, perhaps using date.
Btw, the SK-A-550 versions do vary in their embedded colour profile. The original had been through Photoshop and had a sRGB colour profile embedded. The latter has no profile (I have downloaded the JPG from Rijksmuseum and confirm it also has no profile). That's a shame, though the lack of a colour profile is now less of a problem than it used to be, since Chrome now correctly assumes sRGB. But I suspect the main reason for the change in appearance is likely to be lighting and Photoshop adjustment of the original. -- Colin (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Colin, as i am going through the uploads i did, i noticed that most pictures i uploaded are realy the same pictures with only higher resolutions, and most of the ones that are not the same, still originate from the same source but where changed later. So in my humble opinion i think that for the users it is more easily to have the picture of the higher resolution there, even if we do not show it as the 'main' picture because of colours. After all, we do all this work for the users and not for ourselves. However, if the general opinion is that all these files should be seperated files, than i will continue to upload them with a new name, all tough we miss the "art-work" format. Please advice.
The forbidden example of two photographs of the same object is located under a sub-heading "Completely unrelated files". This is misleading as they are related: they photos of the same object. I propose we change the heading to "Files related only by subject", and add another example in addition to Michelangelo's David, using a notable painting. After all, it is obvious there are several ways to photograph a sculpture, but people seem to think paintings are more directly copied (which is why Copyright does not award any merit to the photographer, even though it is indeed a skilled job to accurately photograph a painting). -- Colin (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Reverts
Suggest going ahead and mass reverting the artwork overwrites by @Mr.Nostalgic: , as this seems best to comply with COM:Overwrite as these are different photographs with different colour profiles, different lighting and so on. The files will remain in the upload history, and should anyone care to split these out as separate files, probably reusing the image page wiki text, that would be dandy. Unfortunately the uploader appears unwilling to change their approach, and the overwrites have continued, ignoring this discussion which clearly makes the overwrites contested and controversial.
Happy to consider alternative proposed action from interested administrators, though it seems fairly obvious that at any point Mr.Nostalgic could chose to upload these files as separate uploads rather than causing controversy and unnecessary work for other volunteers. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Dear @Fæ: , there is no unwillingness from my part. If the community thinks it is better to make them seperate files, i will do so. The only reason why i am not doing it now is, that i do not think that if one user is of a different opinion, we immediately all should comply to this user. Again, if there is good argumentation that i should upload them as different files and admins think i should do so, than i will comply. On my page i already suggested that referting is no problem from my part and i am already doing that for uploads that are clearly different in colours. Maybe a couple of more admins can help us out? I will wait with uploading more, till i have a clear answer, ok?
I don't think mass revert is a reasonable action, particularly as the edits were in good faith and do improve the project. This is different from the Jan debacle where the uploaded images had amateur colour alterations and often incorrect sourcing. The consequence of blanket revert would be that the newer and higher resolution photos that have been uploaded are no longer accessible and used. Also the sourcing of the current versions are correct -- this is the current version from the museum. COM:OVERWRITE says that we should not overwrite with "Different files relating to the exact same object" and not when there is controversy (which this discussion indicates). So Mr Nostalgic should take a different approach going forward. Is it possible to identify which files are merely higher resolution but from the same photograph -- if there are lots of them, then uploading with a separate file is not only not required but creates a duplicate that generates a candidate for deletion for the old file. Could Mr.Nostalgic please highlight a few he believes are identical photographs, just different file size? While COM:OVERWRITE dictates what uploaders should not do, it does not tell us how to fix the problem. It may be best to simply learn from this and move on. If there are older versions that Fae or others think are particularly superior to the new versions (and I find this unlikely, since the museum itself has replaced them), then it may be simpler to upload them separately. -- Colin (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Colin, on closer look to a couple of uploads i did, i came to the conclusion (but i am not an expert) that almost all, if not all photo's from the lower and the higher resolution originate from the same source photo's and looks that they were cropped and coloured by the museum, where the museum probably desided to release them in higher resolution later on and adjust there lighting and/or colour. But compairing the photo's and seeing the position of the camera and the pictures where not changed, let me to believe that they are the same photo's.
Following are some examples where you can see the differences. Again i respect any decision for what is best to do.
I looked at File:Portret van de kinderen van Barend Goudriaan Rijksmuseum SK-A-4930.jpeg. The original has some EXIF data but the current has none. The original has a EXIF date of 2007 and has been through Photoshop but has no details of what camera or scanner was used to create the image. I also looked at File:Pieter Jacobsz Schout (1570-1645). Burgemeester van Haarlem Rijksmuseum SK-A-380.jpeg. Again the EXIF on the original is dated 2010 and indicates a Hasselblad H3DII-50MS was used (which wasn't available in 2007). The current version is 31MP and the old Hasselblad could have produced that size of photo. I haven't found camera information in any of the other photos. That's a seriously expensive camera and indicates the care and investment the museum would have taken in creating them. I note that of the few I compared for size, the larger photo was precisely the same aspect ratio as the smaller one, which would result if downsizing an image. If they were different photos, even of the same painting, then I'd expect a bit more variation in pixel dimensions. But I only checked a few. It is possible that someone has decided to release the old images and release them with different processing (the original uploads were processed in Photoshop). I think it more likely that they have taken the opportunity to rephotograph the images with newer equipment and process those. Except for the photos Fae highlighted above, where the lighting shining off the painting/gold clearly changed, it is quite hard to tell. I wish there was more evidence in the EXIF. You could always try asking Rijksmuseum, giving a few images as examples, if they are new photos or old photos that were reprocessed.
If we could be confident they are the same photo, reprocessed by Rijksmuseum, then COM:OVERWRITE would permit overwriting, even if the brightness/colours have changed -- and I would assume that a museum that can afford to spend €23000 on a camera, is taking some care to get those colours right. But if in doubt, best to use another file. -- Colin (talk) 09:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The original date gives a clear impression that it was used for both ealier uploaded pictures! I would conclude that they are the same pictures, processed in a different way! The Rijksmuseum askes to alway order or ask the latest version (in Dutch):Onze bestanden worden voortdurend aan de nieuwste kwaliteitseisen aangepast. Bestel daarom steeds de nieuwste versie en vermijd hergebruik. So i think it would be appropriate to always overwrite with the latest version. I can send you the mail they wrote to me when ordering the high quality high resolution picture. Mr.Nostalgic (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Mr.Nostalgic, thanks. Interesting to see the uncropped image and the calibration charts. Yes that would indicate the original photo could be the same source for both. Did they explicitly say anything about that? Then the upload is perfectly fine per COM:OVERWRITE. I think in the case of File:Twee evangelisten Rijksmuseum SK-A-3979.jpeg this is an unusual gilt picture that wasn't photographed well originally -- the light is uneven with too much coming from the top left. So I guess someone has decided that they should re-shoot that. We should have that image in different files (even if the original is clearly inferior). You can also see the crop is different between photos -- so the lighting direction (if visible) and the crop should perhaps be indicators to you that they are different photos and should be separate files. Other than that, I think overwriting is fine here. -- Colin (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Please ensure all subtemplates are fully protected, just had a troll break all inclusions by fiddling with Template:PD-WorldWind/en. If it's that easy to invalidate licensing templates one should review them all and protect at least the english language main language subtemplate. --Denniss (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
IMHO, the image is far from being free and a discussion is needed. However, it seems to be protected and a proper deletion request cannot be opened (of course, I can open a deletion request without editing the image, but the process wouldn't be complete). --Discastotalk13:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, @Jeff G.: . Although I understand the reason to have it protected, I don't think it's here where I should support my claims, shouldn't I? Moreover, I don't think I have to ping anyone. We have a procedure to handle a deletion request and I just ask for its handling according to our policies. A protection should not prevent good faith Commons users (I do think I am, former admin, license reviewer, 400,000 editions, 40,000 images uploaded) from opening a DR (however, it's pretty easy to verify that the text of the template, based on the Venezuela's law, does not apply to this picture; the law reads prevents texts of laws, decrees, official regulations, public treaties, judicial decisions and other official acts from being copyrighted; however, a picture is neither a text nor a part of any "official act", actos oficiales in Spanish). Even if my interpretation is wrong, AN is not the place to discuss it. I can just open a regular DR and ask an administrator to add the tag for stating the image is under discussion. Is that possible? --Discastotalk15:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I understand that this is not the appropiate place for this, but the following exceeds a little my capacity. In view of the ongoing presidential crisis in Venezuela, users had uploaded in the past weeks files related that are not clearly qualified to be in Commons, because of the copyright law of Venezuela. I was thinking of a mass deletion request. I found 13 files in that situation, one of which is this. Suggestions on how to deal with this issue? -Frodar (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes I wonder if there is a possibility to correct errors on the main page. As today, where the Duchess and the Duke of Cambridge a shown leaving the Holocaust memorial in Berlin in July '1017, it is not seldom that there are editorial errors to be found in the daily presentation.
I accept, that such a prominent site as the main page is to be protected from vandalism, but as long, as this is not egalized by a corresponding editorial preciseness, these problems will continue. So I ask, who has the permission to edit this page and is to be adressed in such emergencies. --PtrQs (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
So, (first) it’s about some Ukrainian text. But, (second) from your link it has to be changed in Translatewiki which is edited independently. What is in your opinion wrong in “
Ця сторінка наразі не існує. Ви можете пошукати цю назву на інших сторінках, пошукати в журналах або створити сторінку з такою назвою.
(I noticed your question above about this mistaken Category:Category: page.) And note that this message Noarticletext is used for every namespace (correct me if I’m wrong), so “page” or “
Thank You very much for answer! Yes, I created mistaken Category:Category: page and saw message on this page “
Зараз на цій сторінці нема тексту. Ви можете пошукати цю назву на інших сторінках, пошукати в журналах або створити сторінку з такою назвою.
”. But original message in English: "This page does not currently exist. You can search for this page title in other pages or create this page." is more coorrect and mean “
Ця сторінка наразі не існує. Ви можете пошукати цю назву на інших сторінках, пошукати в журналах або створити сторінку з такою назвою.
Volodymyr, the strange part here is actually, that translatewiki:MediaWiki:Noarticletext/en clearly starts with “There is currently no text in this page.” and this should be used, though I agree with you that the text “This page does not currently exist.” is far more clear. On the other hand: I now have noticed that you already had changed the translation before I added answered above, so my citation was the edited text from you and no wonder that it seemed to be correct. Note that, in general, these strings are in Commons not instantly updated, this happens only once a week in the moment. — Speravir– 04:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment I would handle this as any new request: one week for discussion, and after that maybe even new closer. Taivo (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Hochladeassistent verändert Dateinamen
Hallo,
die Wiki-Programmierer haben vor wenigen Tagen den Hochladeassistenten verändert. Der macht nun aber Fehler, verändert z.B. meine Dateinamen oder zählt unsinnigerweise die Hausnummern hoch.
Beispiel:
Ich habe vor wenigen Tagen die folgenden Dateien in dieser Reihenfolge in einem Zug hochgeladen:
19690828101NR_Dresden-Strehlen Villa Wiener Straße 81.JPG
20050322360DR_Dresden-Strehlen Villa Wiener Straße 81.JPG
20050322380DR_Dresden-Strehlen Villa Wiener Straße 81.JPG
Es handelt sich jeweils um das gleiche Objekt, allerdings aus verschienen Jahren, 1969 und 2005. Meine Dateinamen beginnen immer mit einer Ziffernfolge, in der das Datum + eine 3-stellig Bildnummer dociert ist.
Mit Entsetzen bemerke ich heute, daß der Hochladeassistent die von mir vergebenen Dateinamen verändert hat. Damit bin ich nicht einverstanden. Die vom Hochladeassistenen automatisch gebildeten Dateinamen sind falsch:
19690828101NR_Dresden-Strehlen Villa Wiener Straße 81.JPG - ist korrekt geblieben
19690828101DR_Dresden-Strehlen Villa Wiener Straße 82.JPG - falsch
19690828101DR_Dresden-Strehlen Villa Wiener Straße 83.JPG - falsch
Der Hochladeassistent hat meine Kern-Dateinamen (die Nummer am Anfang) einfach verändert. Da darin mein Datum codiert ist, hat er meine Fotos von 2005... ungefragt auf das Jahr 1969... rückdatiert. Noch eigenwilliger ist der Eingriff, die Hausnummern als fortlaufende Bildnummern mißzuverstehen und einfach hochzuzählen - 81 - 82 - 83.
Ich bitte darum, das zu korrigieren und sich die Software des Hochladeawssistenten noch mal anzusehen.
Other version templates for SVG translation campaign
Starting from 21 February 2018, we will be starting a campaign in India to translate SVG files from Category:SVG diagrams in English into different Indian languages. The campaign page is at Commons:SVG Translation Campaign 2019 in India. Initially we will be targeting 200 files, listed at Commons:SVG Translation Campaign 2019 in India/File list/Telugu. Oonce a file has been translated and uploaded to WCommons, it is ideal that we create {{Other versions}} template. Expecting each file to be translated into atleast 5 languages (focus of 20 languages), we'll obviously need this template to interlink all these translations from each. It can be confusing for newbies to create the templates and work with the code, it may lead to unwanted creations and duplicates. To avoid this, we would like to create these templates for all the 200 files with the currently available versions, sometimes only the English version, and add them to files (only to those which already don't have this) beforehand. During the campaign, users will just add their translated version to template. I believe that this will eliminate a lot of confusion. But currently if the file only has the English version, thetemplate can get deleted. So I would like to request to hold these until the campaign is over on 31 March, and delete if there are any singles post the campaign period. Please let me know if this feasible and acceptable. Suggestions for the overall campaign are also welcome, thanks in advance. KCVelaga (talk · mail) 07:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
It's being caused by too many expansive parser function calls, the software counts 693 when the limit is 500. It'll be caused by you making the pages too long with your recent edits, Footwiks. Nick (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I've deleted the Melbourne Victory FC kits page as there's no history to revert to which functions. If/when you recreate it, could you try in your sandbox first and ensure it's functional before publishing. Thanks. Nick (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Can this DR be closed as keep before the Google Cache refreshes and the license changes from CC BY 3.0 to ARR by someone please? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome Leoboudv :), I've gone ahead and closed the DR and added a notice to the talkpage - The screenshot is on both the DR and talkpage just incase there's any issues, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk00:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Administrators with OTRS access
Please check this ticket and help me to close the case. Spanish Italian answer would be great. Should we delete these pictures or should I forward to legal? Thanks in advance! Bencemac (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I would not prefer a courtesy deletion in this case, given the fact that this person is apparently notable, with an article in two languages, it:Casty and fi:Andrea Castellan. Please be aware that the ticket is in Italian, not in Spanish. Jcb (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@Bencemac: I assume there is a picture somewhere which is properly licensed but the actor or politician (it's usually them) doesn't like it. You could open a DR (this has happened before) but that will generally result in keep. The particular case will have to be judged, sometimes the outcome could be different. If you don't want to start a DR, forward it to legal. They'll probably wipe their behind with the complaint assuming it has no grounds, but that's ok. - Alexis Jazzping plz14:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@Bencemac: I would suggest a DR for the three images to start with and see how it goes. Going by the date they are not pushing for an answer - if it is a "keep" they may accept it. Ronhjones (Talk)20:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Nach dem Upload einer neuen Datei habe ich festgestellt, dass bei meinem Usernamen zwei Warnungen bei der neuen Datei aufscheinen:
User has warnings about missing licenses und User has DR notices.
Ich habe aber bislang immer nur korrekt hochgeladen, keine meiner Dateien musste gelöscht werden. Was also bedeuten diese Warnungen? --SchorschG (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
After upload of a new picture, i mentioned 2 warnings next to my Username:
User has warnings about missing licenses and User has DR notices.
On hold - Given the fact they've been here since December 2017 I would rather them change it then us outright block them, They should atleast be given a chance to change it first. –Davey2010Talk17:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Left a talkpage message as well as emailed them - If after 3 days nothing's been done then it should obviously be blocked but for the time being we'll wait. –Davey2010Talk17:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Just because majority of western wikipedians say Russia isn't a part of Russia doesn't change the fact that it is. You cannot make delusional and false edits on things that doesn't exist, I have the right to revert. Jim7049 (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Jim7049, you have made more than a dozen reverts over the past day or so, against at least three separate editors. It would behoove you to self-revert and discuss the changes on the talk page before someone comes along and blocks you for openly edit warring. GMGtalk19:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
This is not a copyright issue but its about the huge photo collection site we know as Flickr. Flickr is going to start deleting hundreds of thousands if not millions of pictures around March 2019 for users who don't pay to upgrade their account. If you have more than 1,000 images you will lose images from 1001+. The article claims that CC licensed flickr images are protected but I don't know if this is true. But many ARR licensed images whose owners don't upgrade will be gone. There are no longer any free photo sites except Commons---but you don't put private family photos on Commons. I wonder how many quality images that are ARR will be lost forever. Its very sad. I have a flickr account but luckily I have less than 200 images on it. --Leoboudv (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, There are requests lying there for ages. It would be good to have at least input from new people. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: feel free to ping me on any case you think might interest me. To name a few things, anything Dutch-related, scope-related, images from Tasnim, images that are claimed to be genuinely own work and works that are believed to be public domain. Less interesting: OTRS (can't access that), works that are suggested to be {{PD-US-not renewed}} (I don't consider myself an expert in that), fair use claims. - Alexis Jazzping plz10:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. I have expected to get more input, or even a decision from admins. It is quite sad than so few admins are really active here. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I think if UDR was somewhat categorized I would visit more often. But to find the interesting cases in a sea of silly fair use claims and OTRS tickets I can't read is no fun. Also in general, I can't see the deleted content, so often I simply couldn't judge. Perhaps if I could see at least the file page (even without the actual file), I could say more. - Alexis Jazzping plz10:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
77,875 photos > 1 was apparently "dodgy" > ends up at FlickreviewR/bad-authors > The fuck?, One photo out of 77 thousand doesn't equate to bad author not even close!, Support removing their name. –Davey2010Talk00:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
As my edit summary said Adding BedfordAl (68139823@N06) because https://www.flickr.com/photos/68139823@N06/16284933246 uploded her as File:Dennis Max 6 (16284933246).jpg, and there are lots of copyvios on the site. Every page on the photostream has many copyright violations on it, from toys to paintings to old images he never took. He has just set his default setting to CC-BY. I sure this will not be the last we hear about him. Ronhjones (Talk)03:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I started working on a new module, Module:UserRights, but then figured out that what I was planning wasn't technically feasible (I wanted to make a utility for easily retrieving a user's groups/rights, but evidently that information is not available via Scribunto, per phabricator:T85419). I would thus like the page to be deleted per COM:CSD#G7; however, since it's a Lua module, I can't add {{Speedydelete}}. Could an admin please delete the page for me? Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Usually not, but there are exceptions. For example, Commons needs images about advertisements, but not every kind of advertising is welcomed here. In fact, unambiguous advertising is even standard reason for speedy deletion. I nominated the file for regular deletion. Taivo (talk) 07:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
If you are knowledgeable, please feel free to make a vote to keep or delete in this DR. It has 2 contradictory and incompatible licenses. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
You don't have approval to run a bot and you posted this from your bot account so your bot is not blocked. Am I missing something? --Majora (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
You're missing my point. If your bot was being affected by that block it wouldn't be able to post here. The bot account has now posted here twice (please stop using your bot account to post in that manner by the way). Therefore, locally whitelisting that IP would do nothing as the range block is not currently affecting your bot account. In any case, Not done for the simple reason that your bot does not have permission to run. Get approval first. --Majora (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: A possible next step at Commons:Bots/Requests/OsmHydrantBot is to ask for test edits. To make those test edits in the same manner as production edits, they have to be made from the production machine at 85.13.149.199. The above requests were not posted from that machine. A local IP block exemption for OsmHydrantBot would solve the problem. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me04:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
The individuals overseeing BRFA are 'crats, Jeff G.. All with the same power to grant whatever exemptions they see fit if and when they see fit to authorize testing. This is not the purview of AN nor is it the purview of regular admins that do not work BRFA. A total IPBE also wouldn't work as the block is global. The IP would have to be individually unblocked via Special:Globalblockwhitelist. Again, all of this can be done by the approving 'crat if and when they decide to do so. --Majora (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I have got an approved bot now. I'll stop all manual actions by OsmHydrantBot. The test edits I've done from my local development environment. Now I would need a whitelisting for 85.13.149.199. OsmHydrant (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Apparently I was wrong. After double checking with someone else apparently local IPBE will override global blocks. Today I learned and I'll remember that for the future. IPBE is a much better idea than whitelisting an entire blocked range (which is blocked for good reason) anyways. Since it is approved, I've given the bot the IPBE flag, even though it really should have been done at COM:BRFA. Let me know if something isn't working. --Majora (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I submitted a file renaming request for File:千岛湖站.jpg several days ago, but so far nobody processes the request, much slower than usual. So please make someone finish the movement as soon as possible, thanks.--Whisper of the heart14:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps not changed but clarified, Steinsplitter so it is more clear as to our renaming policy. Perhaps something along the lines of If a word is generally written in a non-Latin language please name it as it would be written in the native language and create a redirect to it using Latin script if possible. Files will not be renamed just to change languages or alphabets but redirects are welcome. For example, File:ru-speak.ogg could be a redirect to File:ru-говорить.ogg but I would never approve a rename to change one to the other since it would be changing the title's language, which is against the guideline. I think it would also be beneficial to have that redirect anyways so people can find those pronunciations easier if they are learning the language. --Majora (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't know Russian. I machine translated it. You can be darn sure I would never have been able to find the pronunciation file anyways if I was trying to if it wasn't already listed as an example on Category:Pronunciation. But if it is wrong that is why I added the "if possible" part of the notice I came up with. It covers more bases. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Well...to a native English speaking American, fr-speak -> fr-parler actually makes sense. fr-to speak would technically be "more correct". But if I was looking how to say the word "speak" when trying to learn French, fr-speak would be my first guess to type into the search bar. --Majora (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Files should NOT be renamed only because the filename is not English and/or is not correctly capitalized. Remember, Commons is a multilingual project, so there's no reason to favor English over other languages.
Imagine a village having such policy that forbids painting a publicly used outhouse in another color, if it is already painted. One day, Beko repainted certain outhouse from grey to blue. Local police, predictably, detained Beko over the infraction. Then Jon Kolbert came and said: “the outhouse was painted blue illegally, we must paint it grey again”. How many persons would be willing to elect Jon the sheriff after that? I see one just below, who more? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
That's not how it works, Incnis Mrsi. When something is done in contravention of our policies, we remedy the damage, even if it's inconvenient, generates additional log entries or causes us more work. That's because to do nothing gives a clear 'first mover' advantage. If Jon hadn't reverted the moves, Beko would have succeeded in forcing his viewpoint ahead of our policy, that's something we can never permit. Consensus and policy first, personal opinion a distant second. Nick (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
In some cases, only one or two files need to be moved from someone to claim 'victory' - particularly common in the case of territorial disputes and the like. A no tolerance approach is the correct and consistent way to deal with this. If, of course, you don't like this approach, you're free to persuade the community to support your approach. Nick (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Done: Added to COM:CDC. --Achim (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Not done: That's just the reason why the file is protected. --Achim (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Not warranted anymore because rectified by Majora. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC) wikimedia.org directly and send a permission statement to the OTRS team. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose This appears to be about educational illustration File:Wiki-frot1.png. Please see COM:CENSOR. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Ymblanter --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Keep Special:Diff/308030280 and Special:Diff/304129530 are concerning. However, both are resolved now and we can move on. No files need to be deleted. This Flickr account may or may not be fake. But if we are going to treat it as fake, we need evidence. Other links are not that problematic, in my opinion. In particular, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by T Cells does not make me worried. The first batch of files is a common misconception among Wikimedians; I see many Wikimedians who upload Wikimedia-related files without "proper" permission from all over the world. The second batch consists of old uploads. At last, I think a message should be left at Commons:License review/requests to let its regulars know about this discussion. 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment Even thou, I wasn't too comfortable with Alexis Jazz's approach, I'll like to respond to questions related to the three images linked above. I was dead wrong for passing the three images. The first image was incorrectly tagged as {{PD-Author}} instead of {{PD-MAGov}}. Thus, it should not have been passed. The sources provided for the other two files were linked to different images and should not have been passed as well. I apologize, I would be more careful and diligent in the future. Thank you for pointing this out. Regards. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 09:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Support a keep closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kimberly Kowal Arcand at TEDx Providence Rhode Island.jpg. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Request please create Template:Discontinued free license/hr and update {{I18n/license}}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
