Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 75

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

Please delete the following pages, my email is getting filled with crap from Voldemort (I don't want my email to be public anymore)

User_talk:Eatcha
User:Eatcha
User:Eatcha/wh0 is eatcha
My only fault was providing some users with a link for a copyright case, after that I'm constantly getting nonsense emails from that user, that too from different mails, don't know how to block these. Please delete these pages ASAP. I use forwarding that makes this more worse. Warm regards -- Eatcha (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Voldemort

Hi, I would like a review of the issue on COM:VPC#OTRS request: wrongly claimed ownership, and my block on this user. I obviously oppose unblocking, and I wonder if further legal threat on the talk page warrants a longer block and/or talk page access being removed. Tuválkin claims that the block of Benugouma was unjustified, or harsh. @Herbythyme: , as involved admin. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure I can see how I am an involved admin? --Herby talk thyme 15:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@Herbythyme: You blocked Benugouma, but, as Alexis Jazz pointed it below, I don't understand what's the relation with Voldemort. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I see now Tuvalkin dragged Benugouma into this. The block of Benugouma was, at the time, correct as far as I can tell. Assuming it's true they reuploaded some files. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: What does Benugouma (talk · contribs) have to do with this? As for Voldemort (talk · contribs), interestingly, Commons does not have the w:WP:No legal threats policy. However, "your hacker friend Eatcha who somehow created that fake link" can be considered a personal attack. The sarcastic WikiLove messages are essentially disruption. Maybe a month is a bit long. For the WikiLove disruption, two days would have probably been enough. Wouldn't expect them to continue that after a two-day timeout. For the personal attack/legal threat, I'd say a week or so. (I would expect Voldemort to continue with that after just two days) Obviously, if they continue down this path when the block expires, the next block should be longer. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I just noticed [1] and [2]. "you will get exposed and might also have to face jail term for hacking into that Archive site".. Wait.. "that Archive site"?
Voldemort is acting like a complete idiot. That's either because he is one, or it's a sock/hacked account. Note that Voldemort made zero edits between 2007 and 2019 on enwiki. And in 2007 he wasn't an idiot it seems. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, something looks fishy, but I don't know exactly what to do. That's the reason for my reason for my request here. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: do we have something like w:Wikipedia:Blocking policy#"Not here to build an encyclopedia" on Commons? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Not yet, but NOTHERE is frequently cited anyway (as in "not here to build a media repository").   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Based on CheckUser data from en.wiki this user is Confirmed to Skymhnty, and based on historical data is very very likely to be a compromised account, and has been locked by stewards. Whether or not a commons admin wishes to block in addition is up to them. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Reporting copyvios

File:Alizeh.png -- Lolsoly (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Kristina Pimenova June 2019.jpg -- Lolsoly (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lolsoly: Please turn on "Quick Delete" in your preferences and use the "Report copyright violation" button that will appear on the sidebar. There is no need to report individual copyvios here. --Majora (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Прывітанне, карыстальнік загружаў выкрадзеныя выявы — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolsoly (talk • contribs) 18:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

more stolen images

No administrative action needed here. Lolsoly is requested not to bring irrelevant topics to this board while there are other ways to solve them. De728631 (talk) 20:29, 14 July 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.

*.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolsoly (talk • contribs) 18:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Seriously. Please stop. This is unnecessary and a misuse of this noticeboard. Please use the gadget I already linked you to. --Majora (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

User_talk:Lolsoly#Latinization, Я не брытанскі? Lolsoly (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Хто-небудзь можа дапамагчы гэтаму хлопцу? Lolsoly (talk) 19:25, 14 July 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.

LTA:ISECHIKA 20190714

These two accounts special:permalink/357603961 special:permalink/357603927 are most likely socks of ja:LTA:ISECHIKA. Please nuke and block. But there's something strange this time. Where is their centralauth data? I cant find their Commons user ID either.--Roy17 (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

File:DougParkerLookingOld.jpg from File:DougParker.jpg

падробленае выява ствараецца з выкарыстаннем штучнага інтэлекту -- 05:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolsoly (talk • contribs) 05:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/american-airlines-aadvantage/1973363-doug-parker-wikipedia-page-profile-photo-altered.html 05:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolsoly (talk • contribs) 05:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

At the time of the upload, I had set the source link of all photos to the gallery link and the FlickreviewR 2 bot failed to verify it.

Category:Permafrost_in_Herschel_Island

I have now specified the direct link to each photo, so I ask to someone to try to run the bot again, or to verify it manually.

Thank you!

—Arthurfragoso (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stacey Abrams in May 2018.png

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.

It might be a good idea for an administrator to look at this and assess the close. It appears that the nominator Cassianto did withdraw their deletion request, but the discussion probably shouldn't be closed by someone who has !voted in it. On English Wikipedia this would be likely be a case of en:WP:INVOLVED, but not sure if that really matters on Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look Pi.1415926535. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:26, 16 July 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.

xtools for RfA

If someone Requests for an adminship, I would support that such users should enable xtools (e.g. https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/commons.wikimedia/JoKalliauer ) for the peroid of the Request. I enabled it before my RfA. I know everyone makes mistakes and we might should not focus too much on old mistakes, but I still think xtools helps in finding strength and weaknesses of each person. (It is not related to the current RfA, it is more about future-RfAs.)  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 19:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. However, you can always use alternatives such as Wikiscan 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: Thanks, I did not know Wikiscan, but I find the top 10 edited pages for each namespace interessting, but of corse I could check every namespace in Special:Contributions/JoKalliauer.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 21:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

part of LTA:Martimc123, hijacked account

Special:Contributions/Rypinianin vandalisms are pending. Already blocked indefinitely in w:pl:Specjalna:Wkład/Rypinianin Block needed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.30.14.233 (talk • contribs)

File:LG_Volynsky_polk.jpg vandalized by content revert from above account. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.30.14.233 (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Per their edits from July 13 on and the indef-block on :pl, which seem to support the suspicion of a hijacked account, I've tentatively indef-blocked Rypinianin (talk · contribs). --Túrelio (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. His vandalisms could cost us content - if unnoticed, files would be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.30.14.233 (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Please too reblock him with his talk page access revoked, as is in PL-wiki. I feel that anything he talks will be fake as well. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.30.14.233 (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
He offended himself because of deletion process on Wikipedia and now wants to reject his content. --Wargo (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The CC licenses are irrevocable. Once granted, can't be revoked. IPs wanted to benefit Wikipedia by thwarting his vandalism and sabotage, which if successful, would cause content LOSS to Wikipedia. IPs did GOOD work! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2001:985:D5D4:1:A00:27FF:FEA6:A2E7 (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
He turned out to be sock puppet of Martimc123, already globally banned as such. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2001:985:D5D4:1:A00:27FF:FEA6:A2E7 (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
He now evaded BAN and vandalizes, using sock under Special:Contributions/Cavalcantti name. PL-wiki checkuser confirmed it, see w:pl:user:Cavalcantti, so it deserves BAN too here. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2001:985:D5D4:1:A00:27FF:FEA6:A2E7 (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done I blocked Cavalcantti for abusing multiple accounts. All files deleted. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Reviving thread "T&S concern"

Hey all - just wanted to ping on this thread. It looked like folks had more or less agreed on a way forward, but the thread was automatically archived without any action. Is this something that could be revisited? Thanks! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@JSutherland (WMF): I thought about creating a template, but don't know what German law this is about. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
We could place {{Personality rights}} for now. The concern is analogous to the common law right to privacy in USA. Nemo 09:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm still broadly in favor of treating this as an NCR and developing a custom template to warn reusers. I don't have absolute confidence in the ability of the Foundation to interpret local policy. But yes, the template should probably be developed by a German speaker familiar with the laws and their scope. GMGtalk 17:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Based on the Personality rights template, the text for {{Domestic authority Germany}} could read:

Although this work is freely licensed or in the public domain, the object(s) shown may not have been photographed according to the requirements of freedom of panorama in Germany. The land owners of the location may want to exercise property rights that legally restrict certain re-uses of this work unless they consent to such uses. In these cases, a permission or other evidence of consent could protect you from infringement claims. Though not obliged to do so, the uploader may be able to help you to obtain such evidence. See our general disclaimer for more information.

De728631 (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I misunderstand, but is this strictly a FoP issue? Doesn't FoP imply copyright infringement from a derivative work? GMGtalk 19:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
No, you are correct, this is not about Freedom of Panorama. I suggest to change "freedom of panorama in Germany" into something like "some laws in Germany". For the rest I am fine with the text and the proposed template. Jcb (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, this is a FoP issue, namely not being on public ground while taking an outdoors photograph. FoP in Germany allows you to take images of any kind of artwork, architecture, etc. as long as the viewpoint is accessible from a public street or square. On private property like this, FoP does not apply and property laws kick in instead which would allow the house owner to ask for renumeration or some such. De728631 (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
No, FoP is an exception to the copyright law. Now this is not about copyright (the copyright of the architect has expired centuries ago), FoP has no meaning in this case. Jcb (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
No, this is not simply about copyright. The point with German FoP is that it also prevents any claims made by house owners. [3] De728631 (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah. I understand. Yes, the source does mention freedom of panorama specifically (Panoramafreiheit). It is not that this has to do with copyright, but rather that German FoP extends to areas beyond copyright. GMGtalk 13:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: This is about German privacy law, basically. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@JSutherland (WMF): Good, I'll link that. "Restrictions for re-use may apply in Germany for this image. For more information, refer to the German privacy law." Oh darn, that didn't work, did it? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Let's not invent templates based on fuzzy interpretations of a fast-changing magma of countless laws. {{Personality rights}} is perfectly fine. If one is troubled by its assertion that the image contains an identifiable person (which was never a universal criterion in privacy laws and related), then just add "or other private subject matter", which is generic enough to cover various international laws without creating a risk that the template might be attached to countless files. Nemo 16:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: I disagree. {{Personality rights}} speaks of "the person(s) shown", "those depicted" and "model release". Trying to shoehorn something in so it can also apply to this German law will just make it much more confusing. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Reverse cat move

Please reverse special:diff/357568590. Бмхүн (talk · contribs) also removed this cat from File:Maps of China 1912-Now.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log). This behaviour was similar to previous vandals, but Checkuser found the connection inconclusive.--Roy17 (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Deleted files without any notice, stating them as Fake OTRS

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.

Hi, I've recently uploaded a few files at File:Calangute beach bear Panaji, Goa (December 2018).jpg, File:A view of Sinquerim Beach near Panaji, Goa (December 2018).jpg & File:Sunset from Chapora fort, Goa (December 2018).jpg, but one of our OTRS volunteers User:Jcb had deleted them and stated that, they are with fake OTRS. I'm afraid that I haven't added any OTRS ticket to them, they're all tagged with OTRS request. Can someone please assist me on this case.--IM3847 (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I am rather curious exactly what IM3847 had added. See also User talk:IM3847#Warning. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
You added code to the description pages that looked like a PermissionOTRS template, without triggering our abuse filters. Of course this deliberate fraud leaded to speedy deletion. And yes, I did notify you. Please be aware that if I ever see you doing this again, you will be blocked. Jcb (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jcb: I doesn't remember adding any code to the uploads. If I've done, it must be pure mistake due to absence of mind. Can you please undelete them, as the original author have already submitted the OTRS form via mail.--IM3847 (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe this, the added code is way too complex to appear in your upload out of nowhere. If the permission is valid, an OTRS agent will take care of undeletion when handling the ticket. Jcb (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jcb: I've only added {{subst:OP}} to the upload.--IM3847 (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Impossible, this would never have looked like a PermissionOTRS template. Jcb (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jcb: Thats the sole reason why I'm requesting you from the beginning. Please do re-check them once. Atleast I will not make the same mistake again if I came to know, what was the template added by me.--IM3847 (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I am extremely curious to see the wikitext of those file pages. Can someone copy-paste the whole wikitext to Commons:Sandbox or something? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
The wikitext of the template is here. MorganKevinJ(talk) 18:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh my goodness, that must have been a blunder. And I assure you that’s a mistake while pasting from clipboard. Please do go through the OTRS form send by the original author. You can freely block me if this mistake happened again. Extremely sorry for this inconvenience.—IM3847 (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@IM3847: Looks like instead of {{subst:OP}} you entered {{subst:OTRS}}. That's not malice. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jcb: do you take back your block threats? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
After changing the abusefilter 69 it is now triggered according to my test here MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@Morgankevinj: no, it doesn't work. Interestingly, I do get an error for removing the bad permission!

Removal of OTRS permission

You are removing an OTRS permission tag from this page. In general, such tags would have been added by OTRS members and should not be removed by other users unless there is a clear evidence of it being wrong. You may press "Save page" again if you like to save this edit. If you do so, your edit will be tagged for review. In case you aren't sure if your edit is okay, it's best to ask for help, on the OTRS Noticeboard.

Right. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I updated it again using text from the other filter. MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@Morgankevinj: No dice. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
See this diff. MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@Morgankevinj: Nope. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I restored these files. AGF, adding {{subst:OTRS}} by mistake. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, this mistake will not happen again.—IM3847 (talk) 19:21, 18 July 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.

Please remove edit showing IP

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.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Underwater_slope_in_Gullmarn_fjord_2.jpg&action=history

17:10 18 JUL 2019, accidentally edited incognito. Thanks! KennyOMG (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done MorganKevinJ(talk) 18:00, 18 July 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.

Sudden 7-day deletion tagging of images we've uploaded the same way for years

NO ACTION:

All files must have an acceptable license or be in the public domain.(Commons:Licensing) They may be tagged with OTRS pending only after a permission email is sent.(Commons:OTRS) Permission must be proven to come from the copyright holder. MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:29, 19 July 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.

Helllo! I didn't want to bring this to your notice as a user problem yet, because I assume that the valuable deletion-oreinted user is acting in good faith - perhaps a huge rush? - but I do need help. Please look at this and the today's last 7 deletion notices here. Since 2008, Southerly Clubs has donated hundreds of images to Commons as photos taken by board members, other members or associates on assignment. Authors have then (if associates/employees) been given as Xxxxx Xxxxx for Southerly Clubs or for one of the other organizations mentioned on their template and covered by the OTRS. People have travelled from Stockholm to Rome, from Berlin to London, from Paris to Madrid, to take pictures for Southerly Clubs to be released to Commons. I check the watchlist (i.e. mine) every day to make sure everything is OK, and I report problems (very very few, usually) to their board. In some cases also, I've clarified on image pages that e-mail permission is on file with Southerly Clubs, thinking then that (1) that too would go in under the OTRS already established and (2) would avoid about 3-4 tasks per year for Commins permissions clearance and separate OTRS applications.

  1. Is what we' ve been doing for years, which has been OK, no longer OK?
  2. If so, why?
  3. Bearing in mind the permissions backlog, will hundreds of our images (donated in good faith to benefit this project and a multitude imageless Wikipedia articles), now be deleted in 7 days for reasons we have not been aware of, such as "no license" because our OTRS no longer covers what we've been doing the exact same way all this time without realizing there was any problem?
  4. Who can and is willing to explain to me what I need to do? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    1. Files without a license will be deleted after seven days if not license is added. We have been doing that for over a decade with no exceptions. Also you are misusing the Southerly Club template. We have verification on some authors in the ticket, which are listed in the template, but you are using it for unverified authors. The permission template cannot be randomly applied to any author who has some connection to the Southerly Club. Jcb (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
That is your opinion, which is contrary to what I have explained here. We need another administrator to decide this, and if I'm wrong, we need someone to explain to me how it's possible that I've missed all the most important stuff - cpoyright! - for the "over a decade" you're citing. I do not believe I've ever misused the template, and I have been. and am, completely convinced that the OTRS that has already been established in 2008 clearly covers anyone associated the the Southerly Clubs.You're calling that only "some connection" is on you, and is too vague to respond to, but it looks like you are misinterpreting that OTRS, at least as far as I've been told. I have acted in good faith on what I've een told by their board. Your definite accusations here amount to an assumption of work in bad faith on my part. Bad faith for years and years. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not up to the Southerly Club to decide that they can grab the copyright of people associated with them. The people themselves will have to tell us. Jcb (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
That is your opinion and quite contrary to the understanding I've had in the work I've done, if you'd care to read any of what I wrote. Nobody has done any grabbing. Don't get rude. The OTRS was established to clear all our images, including any associates on assignment. Let's let other administrators help us. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The only one who can decide to transfer the copyright to the Southerly Club is the author. Period. An OTRS ticket cannot circumvent copyright laws. Jcb (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
That is not what I have been going by in good faith. People on asignment are coveverd by it.
And I'm sincerely sorry for missing the left row of tags on your page, so I didn't notice that you are an administrator. I'm getting old and being this flustered makes me miss things, I guess. I've adjusted my remarks above accordingly.
We need an uninvolved adminstrator or two to help us, and an uninvolved OTRS person to help you decide whether or not you're interpreting that ticket appropriately. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think even an adminstrator should heve made your last 3 reverts while we're discussing the validity of a template to cover many people on assignment for those organizations fr the last 11 years. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:31, 19 July 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.

Alexis Jazz

NOT DONE:

Commons in not censored and nom is blocked for misleading username. MorganKevinJ(talk) 12:39, 19 July 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.

Block user Alexis Jazz for indefinite period for his weird user-page, Misbehavior with Admins, non stop criticizing and nit picking every minor fault of Admins he disagree with.

This is getting serious, he now behaves like bureaucrat and even tries to control the proceedings at COM:ANU, in my opinion it's the correct time to stop all this by block him for indefinite time. From his user page and talk-page it appears that he had quarrels with many admins. Let us end this together. Cheers! -- Justice-For-All-Syop (talk) 10:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

PS: I will not vote as this will be a violation of Commons policy, I can still votes using my account if others come out in support. Also note that he uses memes to demotivate admins, see following examples:

800px

Also look at File_talk:Adminpedia-image.png, he wants more images like the above. I'm not against criticizing Wikimedia I'm only against this kind of demotivating criticism. Who said we just delete everything, if that's true we are the largest repository of freely available files ?

We just need to speedily delete such types of files, with GR3 (3. Content intended as vandalism, threat, or attack). If we keep continuing tolerating these users, it would only demotivate us. -- Justice-For-All-Syop (talk) 10:36, 19 July 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.

User page protection.

I know that this might be "against" the rule, but I do want to request for protection to both User:CambridgeBayWeather & User talk:CambridgeBayWeather. Many IP vandals.

Thank you. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Only autoconfirmed can edit now Gbawden (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
They will just use a different page and tag me on it. And a different project. Having it on my talk page is less bother for others. CambridgeBayWeather Talk 13:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Just block 186.11.0.0/17. It worked fairly well on Wikiquote. In fact, we may want to consider a global 186.11.0.0/17 range block. GMGtalk 13:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@Gbawden: Now people can nominate/tag CambridgeBayWeather's uploads for deletion without CambridgeBayWeather getting noticed. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Nevermind. Request filed at m:Steward requests/Global. GMGtalk 14:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Block user

Please block user Championship Music and delete this file as copyvio. See this. --Patriccck (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week for reuploading deleted content after warning. File deleted. Yann (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

An email Checkuser request

I was checking recently installed licence reviewers' contribs and might have found a user operating two accounts reviewing each other's uploads. As such I would like to request a CU. I am 80% confident, but just to avoid any unhappiness in case they are unrelated, I wish to make an email request. However, there seems to be no group email list. I am not sure which checkuser might be available and willing to process the request.--Roy17 (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Elcobbola, Jameslwoodward, Krd, Magog the Ogre, and Trijnstel: MorganKevinJ(talk) 12:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: Feel free to email me. Trijnsteltalk 22:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Roy17, in case you seek public CU's assistance, request that on Commons:Requests for checkuser. -- Rillke(q?) 22:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Old photo and speedy deletion

The File:Neville chamberlain1921.jpg was initially tagged as Copyvio (Copyvio). I turend it to regular DR - Commons:Deletion requests/File:Neville chamberlain1921.jpg. I explained the user that the file does not qulify to be sppedy, but Jcb deleted the file as speedy. According to his rational the file do qulify as speedy. I may be wrong so please advice. -- Geagea (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Clearly still all rights reserved until 1 January 2029. When we do know for sure that a file is a copyright violation, like in this case, it's our responsibility to delete it as soon as possible. Jcb (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
So, I am a bad admin that don't know our procedures? Dont you have any hesitation? -- Geagea (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I have told why I have proceeded to delete the file, but as far as I am aware I have not said anything about you. Jcb (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Sure you did. When you reverting my ection - deleting file 2 days after turend speedy to regular DR, you are actually saing that I don't know the correct procedures. -- Geagea (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Copyright of this photo likely expired because:
  1. It was a photograph taken in the UK in 1921.
  2. This means it was protected until 1971-12-31.
  3. Photographer was not a national of other EEA state, so copyright expired in 1972 and was not restored.
This DR could have been a better place to discuss than special:permalink/358778693#UK_Copyright_Act_1911_Section_21_Provisions_as_to_photographs.--Roy17 (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Nope, for the UK PMA+70 applies. Missinformed attempts to interpret old laws won't help here. We have seen this exact assumption before a few years ago and the idea was not adopted by the community after a discussion at VPC. Jcb (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jcb: There are several pages of the VPC archives that make reference to the 1911 Copyright Act with respect to photographs; is there any specific discussion among these to which you refer? Mahir256 (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 Comment There is at least some doubt, so speedy deletion is not appropriate. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I restored this file, as per the discussion below. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Images by Walter Stoneman

Hi, I deleted some days ago a lot of images by the british photographer Walter Stoneman following a speedy deletion request. Now there is a lot of protest from different uploaders. And I definetly will say, that there's not the possibility of a mistake made by me due to a missunderstanding. The UK law seems to allow the use of these images, even the photographer died (in our cas 1958) from today not 70+ yeas ago. Also the situation with such images in the US could be not that easy to be seen. Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States says something about publication. So I need to know the year of first publication (not cretion!). And do we talk here about a publication in the US or world wide? @Kleinzach: @Livinus: @AlbanGeller: @Ferran Mir: @Hrishikes: -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Marcus Cyron:

In 1995 the period of copyright was extended to the life of the author plus 70 years (as described above) for works which were, at that time, still within copyright anywhere within the European Economic Area. One effect of this was to impose a copyright extension of twenty years on all works that were made or published after 1911 by any person who had died after 1945, as the previous copyright period (of lifetime plus 50 years) had not yet expired in the UK for someone who had died in 1945 or later.[22]
— Copyright law of the United Kingdom#Historical background

The author of these images made most after 1911 and died after 1945. AlbanGeller (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Don't think that should be speedy. They are not qualify as speedy. see for example Commons:Deletion requests/File:Herbert Samuel.JPG (I moved speedy to reguler DR). We must to let the community to comment and to hear other arguments if they are any. In the current situation the best is to make DR "Files photographed by Walter Stoneman". and let useres to comment. -- Geagea (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
The provision of copyright extension by 20 years, as mentioned in the Wikipedia article cited above, is for those cases where life + 50 rule was already in place. In those cases, 50 years had not yet elapsed since the author's death, so the 1995 Regulation extended copyright by 20 years. This was not so in case of photographs. As per the 1911 Act, copyright term of photograph was 50 years from the making of the negative. The 1956 Act changed it to 50 years from first publication. If copyright expired by these terms before amendment of the term to life + 50 by the 1988 Act, then there could be no extension to life + 70 by the 1995 Regulation.
As for first publication date asked by the deleting admin, as mentioned in the NPG site (1), the bromide print date for the photograph uploaded by me was circa 1916. IMHO, this should count as the first publication date for the photograph uploaded by me.
Moreover, as mentioned in the NPG site, Stoneman took the photograph for the firm, James Russell & Sons. So it is a case of corporate copyright. Section 4(3) of the 1956 Act (2) states:
(3)Subject to the last preceding subsection, where a person commissions the taking of a photograph, or the painting or drawing of a portrait, or the making of an engraving, and pays or agrees to pay for it in money or money's worth, and the work is made in pursuance of that commission, the person who so commissioned the work shall be entitled to any copyright subsisting therein by virtue of this Part of this Act.
Accordingly, Stoneman did not own the copyright, the firm did. In respect of other artistic works, in case of corporate copyright by newspapers, magazines etc., the firm owned only the copyright relating to publication of the work, the author owned it for all other purposes, vide # 4(2) of the 1956 Act. But for photograph, or the painting or drawing of a portrait, or the making of an engraving, the firm owned full copyright, as cited above.
Therefore, on both counts, 50 years since publication and corporate copyright, the photograph uploaded by me is PD-UK. It is PD-US, being pre-1924.
Hrishikes (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Agreed that the firm owned the copyright, as they would have been the "first owner". And copyright would have originally expired in 2067 for a 1916 UK photo publication (or even creation) like the one you are referring to. However, under the 1996 restorations, the copyright term is 70 years from the death of the human author, regardless of who owns copyright. Only if the author is anonymous or pseudonymous would the term be 70 years from publication. There is no separate provision for "corporate copyright" other than Crown Copyright. So as long as Stoneman was known to be the author before 1997 (within the 70 year period from publication) the term became 70pma, which is still in effect. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

 Comment -- The matter is also under discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#UK_Copyright_Act_1911_Section_21_Provisions_as_to_photographs -- Hrishikes (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Marcus Cyron: @Kleinzach: @Livinus: @AlbanGeller: @Ferran Mir: @Hrishikes: : I suppose that the copyright owner of the Stoneman's pictures published in the site of NPG is the same NPG. If NPG publishes these photos under a Cetaive commons License, is it not valid everywhere?--Ferran Mir (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I am afraid, this is irrelevant as NPG uses restrictive NC and ND CC licenses, not compatible with Commons licensing requirements. Ankry (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ferran Mir: - NPG is claiming copyright under "sweat of the brow", because of their efforts in restoration etc. That's why I did not refer to their claim. It is not relevant here, because the photograph is PD. If the copyright of a UK photograph, without any EEA connection, gets lapsed under the 1956 law, there is no provision for its restoration under the 1988 Act or 1995 Regulation. People are talking about some previous consensus at Commons, without giving any link. UK copyright law as given in Commons is also very incomplete. Nobody has so far offered any shred of evidence, by quoting specific section/sub-section of any specific UK Act/Rule/Regulation or court judgement, as to how such an expired copyright of a photograph could have been revived and then converted to 70 pma rule. Hrishikes (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Marcus Cyron: @Kleinzach: @Livinus: @AlbanGeller: @Ferran Mir: @Hrishikes: : OK. I will not use images from NPG anymore. Thanks by your comments.--Ferran Mir (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
There was no provision for restoration in the 1988 Act true (and the 1956 Act did not change earlier photos, which continued to be based on year of creation). However, virtually all works got restored by the 1995 Regulation (effective Jan 1 1996). All UK authors were also EEA authors. If the work was protected in *any* EEA country as of July 1995, then it got restored in the UK. The UK is part of the EEA, so all UK authors have an "EEA connection". I don't think we have identified any type of work which was PD by the laws of every EEA country which was also less than 70pma (or 70 pd for anonymous works). So it would seem to me that all of Stoneman's works got restored to 70pma in the UK, since other EEA countries (such as Germany) protected his works for 70pma already, and even 50pma protection elsewhere would have been enough to restore them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Maymay.jpg

The 2016 and 2018 uploads are copyvios, so please hide them.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Ankry (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request.

Hello, I am rather new to editing on Wikimedia. I need to delete *File:Invisible disability badge hearts 3.0.png but have no idea how to do it. The font the artist used is unfortunately already under copyright. Apologies. Could any admin assist me with speedy deletion? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 49.199.139.244 (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Asherwolfie: Please login. The file was already deleted. What is the font? Who holds the copyright?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

SF Conservatory of Flowers.jpg

Could someone check if File:SF Conservatory of Flowers.jpg was the same image as File:SF Conservatory of Flowers.jpg? I was planning to move the later here, but don't want to if it has already been deleted. Thanks! BigrTex (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Not the same. Thanks for checking! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Done. Moved as File:Conservatory of Flowers (SF).jpg. BigrTex (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Questionable categories

Geo Swan has uploaded a number of images from the Flcikr account of photographer Eva Rinaldi. They appear to relate to a dispute Rinaldi had with the company caring for her father. The files have names such as File:Carino Care stepped on my fathers toes to lift him up and left him in a chair never reclined for 2 weeks(2) (47932997347).jpg and File:Carino Care Nursing Home abuse and neglect in Russelllea (3) (47932714001).jpg. Geo Swan has added (but not created) the categories "Carino Care Nursing Home in Russell lea" (sic) and "Nursing home neglect". I don't think we should be suggesting that a company is engaging in neglect and elder abuse. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi,
See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from Eva Rinaldi Flickr stream. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Re-uploaded files - User:Ryleermoder

I had initially tagged the recent uploads from Ryleermoder as "no permission", but on closer inspection the same files have already been deleted once. Could an admin please double-check the situation and delete the files, if that's the case? They look like good-faith uploads, but are still copyright violations of their respective sources. GermanJoe (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: I warned them.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into it. GermanJoe (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

For about 15 months or so, Commons was sometimes blocked in Iran in 2014–16. Tens of users were granted IPE on that ground. After three years, I think it is reasonable to remove that privilege from those users especially inactive ones such as Farhad.2119 (blocked on enwiki). 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  1. AFlorence
  2. Aidin Borujeni
  3. Ali.modiry
  4. Arash
  5. Arash.pt
  6. Atabeyk
  7. Aviatrix8704
  8. Behdad.222
  9. Behzad39
  10. Carl
  11. Danialbehzadi
  12. Darafsh
  13. Derakhshan
  14. Farhad.2119 (blocked on enwiki)
  15. Fatemi
  16. Freshman404
  17. HADI
  18. Homiho
  19. Ismail.Sharifi
  20. KOLI
  21. Kasir
  22. Ladsgroup
  23. Lstfllw203 (blocked on fawiki)
  24. MRG90
  25. Mahdi28
  26. Maometto97
  27. Mostafameraji
  28. Nrabbani
  29. ParvizPT
  30. Sunfyre
  31. Yamaha5

I created a list. There are 172 IPE users on Commons now. About one fourth of them are somehow related to Iran. It is noteworthy that less than 1% of Commons visits are from Iran (~ 1 M out of 140 M monthly). 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: less than 1% is not surprising. Commons and Wikimedia in general is most popular in Western countries I think. (broadly speaking) Iran has 10M broadband connections, the US has 110M, Germany 33M, France 28M, UK 26M, Italy 16M, Spain 14M, Canada 14M, Australia 8M, Netherlands 7M, Poland 7M, Belgium 4M and Switzerland 4M. Total 270M broadband connections for Western countries. (this is skipping a few big countries like Japan and Russia, don't know how popular Wikimedia is there) So Iran has only 3.6% of all broadband connections from those countries. In additions, Commons is probably blocked there. So, less than 1%.. Not surprised. Considering the presence of the country on Commons (certainly helped by news agencies using Creative Commons), that <1% is doing quite well. I think many users from Iran don't show up in the stats as they probably either use a VPN, proxy or satellite internet. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I know for a fact that Commons is not blocked in Iran.
Your statistics is misleading. World has more than a dozen countries! Just for example, Arab countries together have a stronger voice/base than Iran. And I am somehow missing the point of these stats. I accept that it was somewhat my own fault to talk about the page views in the first place.
The whole point is that these users no longer need IPE, so per COM:IPE policy, their privilege should be revoked. Most of them have been granted this right so that they can take part in WLM 2016. Fawiki itself is quite strict about using VPN/proxies and is going to block them by bot on sight. Commons should not be more lenient. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: Not blocked? Interesting. Is the Wikipedia article outdated (well it is as it cites 2013 stats, but did those change?) or is Commons somehow not in the 50% blocked websites from the top 500? And yes, the world has many more countries. But Wikimedia is not equally popular everywhere. My impression is that it's most popular in the US and EU. The point of the stats was: if you say "less than 1% of Commons visits are from Iran", I say "not really surprising given the population and broadband penetration". Anyway. How about asking them on their user page if they still need it and remove it if they don't respond? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Please read my first sentence in this thread: "For about 15 months or so, Commons was sometimes blocked in Iran in 2014–16". And even "block" may not be the right word here; there were some "disruptions" on and off by some ISPs. OTRS users may find Ticket:2015120110016958 informing.
Wikipedia has never been blocked in Iran (except for less than 1000 pages before HTTPS period, not now). Commons was "blocked" for about 15 months by some ISPs intermittently (neither country-wide nor continuously).
If the acting admin prefers to ask them beforehand if they still need their IPE privilege, I raise no issues. However, I don't consider it necessary as IPE is in some respects even more sensitive than sysop right (they can use Tor unlike admins). Commons de-sysops admins regularly for inactivity (every 6 months). IPE users should also be checked for activity/need IMO. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I had read your first sentence but didn't interpret it correctly. Not sure what I thought it meant. As for removal of rights due to inactivity, I've suggested that for both interface administrators and license reviewers. No dice. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

(I'm here because I was notified in my talk page). I think it's not a black or white thing. The list needs revisit, that's for sure. For example I moved to Germany a couple of years ago, I don't need the IPBE anymore (and I know other people in that list that moved to other countries as well) or people who got blocked for sock-puppetry in other wikis. The big problem was that when commons got blocked (which I remember clearly) the expiring user groups wasn't introduced so we had to give everyone an unlimited right which I'm against for doing it for IPBE in general. I don't know the exact situation in Iran now but I know for a fact that A) It got better and all main ISPs stopped the blockage B) Some ISPs was blocking commons but some didn't, in one case, university of the person was blocking it but his home ISP didn't. So my suggestion is that we should revisit this. We should ask people if they have trouble accessing commons and keep the IPBE if they still have trouble. Remove the rest inclduing immigrated people, blocked users, inactive users, etc. Regarding the points made about 1%, I don't see the point. It's morally right thing to do to protect minorities and less fortunate even if it means we have over-representation of a country in IPBE list. One active user can't upload pictures and contribute because their country of living is not cause of 10% of traffic of commons? We don't care about them because they are too small? This mentality is dangerous. I also disagree with "Western"/"non-Western" distinction. Read Factfullness.

As the last point I think it's related to mention the person suggesting this was actually involved with UK embassy attack in Iran (Including this picture that the user was literally on the wall of the embassy alongside people how look like attackers, More uploads by the user, Americophile is a known sock of the user) Amir (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a textbook example of poisoning the well. British Embassy photos show nothing except for a commitment to photojournalism. Please avoid nasty insinuations. This is not your first time. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
As a person who granted most of IPE to above-mentioned users, I have to disagree with this request too, most of these users are well-known and trusted user from fawiki (some of them are local admins) but I think 4nn1l2 should know better than anyone this IPE is not only granted because of commons block in Iran but most of the users in Iran including me have to use anti-censorship tools most of time to access free internet, many of these users bump into block when they come to commons. but if a user is blocked on any other project and shows symptoms of sockpuppetry I am for with removing the access but until every trust person should maintain their IPE access Mardetanha talk 17:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
This is a double standard. You folks at fawiki ask users to use plugins (add-ons) or use different browsers, but grant them IPE here because other websites may be blocked and they may get into difficulty when surfing the web? Not convincing. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Standing on top of the wall of the embassy during attack is photojournalism? Can't you take a picture while not being in the crowed and not breaking international laws? Given your work in Persian Wikipedia I'm not buying it. Anyone is entitled to interpret those pictures differently. You can tell me I'm wrong, I can disagree Amir (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
No. You cannot just insinuate nasty accusations and get away with them. That is the worst case of personal attack (ad hominem) and character assassination. Stop it now. And I won't go defensive any further. This is off-topic and has nothing to do with the issue at hand. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

If a trusted user does not currently need IPE they should not have the right. Open proxy/webhosts blocks generally allow logged-in users to use the email user feature and all admins on here have it enabled. If for any reason they need IPE in the future all they need to do is email any admin. MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Where did you get this? all of them need this right and they are entitled to have it (consider they have emailed me already) Mardetanha talk 08:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Nobody is "entitled" to IPE. Please read Commons:IP block exemption#Used for anonymous proxy editing:
"Who may request – A user who has genuine and exceptional need, and can be trusted not to abuse the right. This is a level of trust equal to that given Administrators, as IP block exemption is an administrative tool.
How to request – Email your request to info-commons@wikimedia.org." [emphasis mine]
Unfortunately, azwiki administration style can also be found to some extent at fawiki. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

You know the internet censorship in Iran isn't a predictable system. Maybe Commons will be block again right tommorow! Iranian users are accustomed to this situation and no one is surprised if Commons (or any website!) gets blocked; therefore we have to use VPN most of time. --Maometto97 (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Seconding this. Amir (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Three years and no signs of any disruption anywhere in Iran. It is reasonable to assume that was just an unfortunate incident. Wikipedia has never been blocked in Iran. Contrary to the claims, internet censorship in Iran is not haphazard; the country has the smartest and most sophisticated filtering system all over the world according to Michael Hull from Psiphon. The chance that you find Commons blocked in Iran tomorrow is negligible. Even in that case, all you need would be a simple email to info-commons@wikimedia.org. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
These users need access, and as long as they are trusted they should have it. I don't why you always create problems where they are not necessary, if there is a sign of misuse, show it or go ahead and remove the access but if it is not the case please stop this Mardetanha talk 12:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I have created no problems. Please stop commenting on me. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually you do but you don't see it. Most of these people are trusted and they need IPE, I have had previously granted Global IPE for several of them. it is matter of need and trust, as long need is combined with trust, I will grant access to everyone who needs it. Mardetanha talk 13:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I am removing the access from those who are not active since 2016 and I will let those who are already active in here or fawiki to maintain their access Mardetanha talk 13:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I am almost done. it would great if you could also check there is anyone left from 2016, from what I see everyone is already active and trusted Mardetanha talk 18:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
سلام و دررود، من پیش تر درخواست دادم و هنوز هم مشکل رو دارم ، تا بحال مشارکت های فراوانی داشتم و نمیدونم دلیل از ایجاد این تایپک چیست و چرا می بایست این باشد قرار نیست ما هر ووقت امکان ورود نداشته باشیم بیاییم یک بار درخواست دهیم . با تشکر از شما Florence (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Removing EXIF information

Per OTRS request, please remove the following EXIF information; phone number from copyright holder, the entire short title, address and phone number from contact information field.

Thanks in advance! Bencemac (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

✓ DoneThese data are still accessible via their sources, but not as visible as on Commons. That being said, I removed all the requested information. Please respond to the ticket and advise them that they should remove these information from the sources too. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: Done, thank you very much! Bencemac (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Please close this deletion request

DRs will be closed no sooner than a week. Users should not open AN threads asking for early closure. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:45, 29 July 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.

Hello, Somebody wrongly nominated my images for deletion,

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:05F2uIhfx0Rv

Alireza.Azamifar (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Please be patient. Nomination is not wrong. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
COM:INUSE ... The uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project ... . Also images has categories. Alireza.Azamifar (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry for editing this closed talk, but we have a serious problem in that talk page, i requested for comment COM:RFC from users with more exprience. please visit THIS talk page, read comments and write your comment. Thanks. Alireza.Azamifar (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
You are on the verge of disruption. RfC is for issues of wider/greater significance for Commons, not a simple DR about some personal files. Consider this a serious warning. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:49, 30 July 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.

Commons:Requests for rights/possible autopatrolled candidates

Hi, the list of possible autopatrolled candidates is back. If it's not updating daily and you'd like to work on that list, please let me know. Please also tell me, if you think it is superseded by another tool. -- Rillke(q?) 08:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rillke: Some possibly interesting things: the date of the last block (the comment is already there..), number of edits to talk page (if this is high, the user has probably been considered for or denied autopatrolled already) and if the user rights log is empty or not? Ideally include the user rights log as well. Some users had autopatrolled removed from them (could be filtered from the list), some might have file mover or rollback. (likely candidates for autopatrolled) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
The edit count to talk page edit count ratio could also be interesting. (if this is low, the user may be a WikiGnome) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Please Delete this uploads

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.

Hello, per this talk, i decided to request for delete these two photos of my uploads, please delete them. Thanks. Alireza.Azamifar (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

  • File:Alireza Azamifar-Taghe Bostan.jpg
  • File:Alireza Azami far.jpg
discussion in progress at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Alireza Azamifar. Admin, please check and provide comments if possible. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 00:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Images should remain atleast until the DR has concluded. –Davey2010Talk 01:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks of all users are involved and commented. we wrote our thoughts there and cite to policies for them. i think we need a third opinion there.Alireza.Azamifar (talk) 09:33, 31 July 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.

Category:Urban Trails

I've made a mess; I wanted to create in the Category:Trails the subCategory:Urban trails. And in this subcat I want to point to Category:Wheelchair trails. Please help! Artehjbj (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done @Artehjbj: Category:Urban trails is now a subcat of Category:Trails. But Category:Wheelchair trails, judging by the content, also includes rural trails, so I'd think about that. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Artehjbj (talk) 10:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Bus jj

Cross-wiki vandalism. SA 13 Bro (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Vandalism only. Blocked indef as a precaution. If they want to they can appeal it Gbawden (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

File talk:Parliament of Turkey 2018 Current.svg

Hi I have an answer. Does an user, for a file called Current, have the right to replace an updated file by and outdated because he does not like the style chosen to make the file?

Also, does he the right to do a CheckUser Request with any evidence only that the both users have the same opinion about the file? Also, despite that the second account, Drgfrt, is dubtful, there was no reason to check me too. I think, the CheckUser should have check only Drgfrt, not me. The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. And having been blocked for "edit warring" does not prove that the person has any sockpuppetry. I have not been blocked for puppet use here, on fr:wiki, on en:wiki, or anywhere else. So this justification is clearly beside the plate. Accusing me to doing it because of my previous block could be a violation of AGF.

The last question is. Dereck Camacho and me were not able to find a solution. So what is the solution? Ask for others opinions? Where? --Panam2014 (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

More forum shopping from Panam2014 ([4][5])
Dereck Camacho opened a Request for checkuser with evidence summarized as follows:
This alone was adequate evidence to suggest Drgfrt was a sock or meatpuppet. Indeed, @Yann: , a former CU, blocked Drgfrt for "Abusing multiple accounts" approximately 4 hours after the RfCU was filed, and approximately 6 hours before I saw the RfCU. Nevertheless, as a supplement and as a smell test, I additionally found and considered, for example:
  • Both Panam2014 and Drgfrt had edited Grand National Assembly of Turkey (Panam2014, Drgfrt) and had edited related to Venezuelan politics (Panam2014, Drgfrt). Turkey and Venezuela are quite different countries by any measure. It is unlikely that two unrelated accounts, especially in consideration of the RfCU evidence, would share an interest in these particular countries; accordingly, this further suggested the plausibility of a relationship.
  • Panam2014 has been blocked multiple times, on multiple projects, over an extended period of time for edit-warring ([6], [7]) indicating both a willingness to edit war (i.e., a demonstrated willness to disregard policy and good conduct when it suits him) and an awareness that edit warring is disallowed and sanctionable (i.e., that socking might allow evasion of new sanctions).
All of the above factors, in the aggregate, plausibly suggested a connection and formed a reasonable basis for a check. With Panam2014's tendentious editing and numerous failures of COM:AGF related to this issue: "Your revert is clearly a vandalism because you have upload a wrong version" [8]; "I maintain that you have committed a vandalism" [9]; asserts Dereck Camacho has filed an RfCU as a threat in the dispute. [10]; etc., he should be grateful he's not been blocked. Эlcobbola talk 18:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: , @Krd: , @Magog the Ogre: , @Trijnstel: feel free to comment. I will not be engaging further. Эlcobbola talk 18:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: English Wikipedia rules can not be applied here. Only Commons and Meta Wiki rules could be applied.

I maintain that the request for "CheckUser" was abusive and offensive. For the rest, I described Dereck Camacho's behavior as "vandalism" (not claiming that he is a vandal) because he replaced an updated file by an outdated. I asked him to upload an updated file but he refused. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

  •  Comment Just a friendly reminder to the community: tendentious editing is not an official policy on either Commons or Wikipedia. Quote:
This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.
AshFriday (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
@AshFriday: an agreement have been reached in talk page. --Panam2014 (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Elcobbola had good reason to perform the checkuser. There's nothing further to do here. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi
In others Wikimedia projects, CheckUsers requests who are the same than the last are rejected for lack of evidence. I could give you arguments that the request were not legitimate. I could also ask others CheckUsers from others projects. If you consider that it is legitimate it will be a precedent here and in others Wikipedia projects.
Who I could ask to contest it? Here there are no arbitration commission. Also is a vandalism to replace and updated version by an outdated? - Panam2014 (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
@Panam2014:
  • CheckUsers requests who are the same than the last are rejected for lack of evidence.
Unfounded requests are rejected here as well.
  • I could give you arguments that the request were not legitimate.
You could, you did, and I rejected it. Elcobolla had a reasonable suspicion that you were the same user. Sometimes we make mistakes. That's why we perform the checks in the first place.
  • I could also ask others CheckUsers from others projects.
You could, and they would probably tell you the same thing. You're more likely to get on their nerves with your forum shopping and inability to take a hint.
  • If you consider that it is legitimate it will be a precedent here and in others Wikipedia projects.
No, this conversation isn't important enough.
  • Who I could ask to contest it?
To contest what? The action has already been made and can't be unmade.
  • Here there are no arbitration commission.
No, we use the noticeboards here. If you had gotten traction here then we could discuss removing Elcobolla's checkuser rights, but that's not happening. You've made your case and lost.
  • Also is a vandalism to replace and updated version by an outdated?
No, vandalism is the intentional defacement of the project. This is a content dispute. Many years ago I wrote an essay to address this fallacy.
For what it's worth, you are dangerously close to climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I am truly sorry that my checkuser request generate such extreme reaction from the user, apologies to all admins, I trully did not expected it. Greetings. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry that I have suffered aggression and often personal attacks from this user, who was often in the provocation, the challenge and even wanted me to be blocked. For the rest, I regret that Magog the Ogre did not answer argument by argument to my initial protest against the request (and preferred to dismiss my appeal without further trial, and preferred to give a terse conclusion) but hey.

I could not do more here. But that my opponent qualifies my reaction as extreme does not help to calm tensions. Especially since my reaction was caused by his general behavior with me. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion request closed without action

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_David290#Files_uploaded_by_David290_(talk_·_contribs)_2 was closed neither as deleted or kept.--Roy17 (talk) 08:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Fixed by User:Mys 721tx [11] 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Golden Hollywood.png - hiding a revision

Recently, a new version of File:Golden Hollywood.png was uploaded. This upload was due to copyright concerns over a preexisting image that was included in the previous version of the montage. As such, File:Golden Hollywood.png has a previous revision (dated 13 January 2017) which may well be non-free (it included an image of Ingrid Bergman that was deleted from Commons) and which should probably be hidden. Your attention to this issue is appreciated. Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gazebo: you can just add Category:Media with unacceptable data in old versions next time. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Richard D.

I'm a little confused by process and would like help. On July 24, I opened Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Richard D. and added it to Commons:Deletion requests/2019/07/24. On July 27, an IP user reverted my deletion request and then a bot archived the discussion. I undid the IP user commit when I found it a few minutes ago, but don't know the proper way to proceed, should I relist this as if it were a new request or readd it to the July 24 discussions or was the reversion somehow proper? Thanks in advance. BigrTex (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Strange. I was under the impress that a blank DR would be put into a holding queue for further examination instead of archived like that. In any case I put it back on the log list and deleted some of the ones that were obviously over TOO. The borderline ones can either wait for someone else who wants to look at them or until they bubble up to the top of the backlog. --Majora (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Name issue

Can someone please rename this file?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chokoooooo.jpg
Because right now it triggers an abuse filter if I want to add it to an article. Help appreciated. --84.236.127.17 18:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Forgot to add two details: 1) this happens on the English language Wiktionary. Wikimedia Commons had no problems adding the above link. 2) The issue seems to be with the six O's. I tried splitting the file name, just as a test, and got the same abuse warning until I have broken up the O's in two parts, which allowed it to pass the abuse filter. (Of course, the link will be broken this way, so this is not a solution.) --84.236.127.17 22:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Dumb filrer anyway, i.m.h.o., waste of everybody’s time. The renaming, although well intentioned and surely the right thing to do in practice, ad hoc, might however be said to go against COM:FR. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    Meh. Original name was certainly close enough to meaningless as to be arguably criterion #2. Could have just created a redirect instead of moving it but either or gets us to the same result. You may want to see if someone listed at wikt:Wiktionary:Administrators can do anything about that filter though. --Majora (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you @Eatcha and Alexis Jazz both! You have been most helpful! --84.236.127.17 05:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Tuvalkin: One of the examples for criterion #2 is "Smartphone.jpg". How is Chokoooooo.jpg any more informative than Smartphone.jpg? Or is the problem that I did it ad hoc? I think my move was in line with COM:FR. Btw, I wouldn't have moved the file just because of a local abuse filter somewhere. But as Chokoooooo.jpg was very generic and as far as I can tell perfectly covered by criterion #2, I moved it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
    (unarchiving to reply, as I forgot to do it in time:)
  • @Alexis Jazz and Majora: concerning §2 of COM:FR, it makes a good case on why those types of “meaningless” filenames are not acceptable, but in my opinion that kind of vetting belongs at COM:FN instead, when a filename is created anew. Changing an existing filename, however, demands an acceptable tradeoff between improving it (in whichever principles that are or can be contemplated upon first upload) and breaking the link to any possible reuses (which may be remote, not local to WMF projects, or even be offline or hard-copy only). In my opinion the current contents of COM:FR favor unevenly the former at the expense of the latter, with unsuficient stress on the importance of redirects. To me it’s clear that File:Smartphone.jpg is a perfectly acceptable filename for any already uploaded JPEG file showing one as its main subject, even though I would recomend more detail upon chosing the filename for a new upload; conversely, File:DSC 1342.jpg is a bad filename in most imaginable cases and it should be renamed to make things easier for reusers, with a permanent redirect catering for any remote use therebefore. As for File:Chokoooooo.jpg to label a photo showing chocolate, meh — definitely not accetable as a new filename, but in my opinion not demanding renaming once it’s in.
  • @Alexis Jazz: I meant to say that I think you you did the right thing at the right time, in view of the matter and considering the relative importance of each element (the filter in Wiktionary and the filename in Commons) and how easy/fast would be to fix each of them.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I must add that in Vexillology a string of six (some times nine) "o"s and/or "x"s in any permutation is a usual shorthand notation for flag usage types, and therefore it should not be filtered off as vandalism, trolling, typo, or covfefe. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Pornhunter

(NSFW) Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sandra Reehs was raised and withdrawn last month. Three weeks later we see the same files up on a DR filed by Sismarinho. Could someone revert this please as inappropriate and indiscriminate use of the Deletion tool because I don't like it?

With no prejudice against specific files being put up on a well considered deletion rationales as being unlikely to be of educational value.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Superseded by a speedy keep outcome, so no action needed here. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

File rename.

Can an administrator please rename File:Roundel of Egypt and Syria (1972–1980).svg back to its previous name "Roundel of Egypt.svg". The current file name takes it out of a standard name convention. I can not do so because of a redirect problem. Fry1989 eh? 18:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fry1989: Where is this "standard name convention" documented?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
All (95% anyway) of the air force roundel files are named "Roundel of -----", it is something I worked on several years ago, to bring them in line with "Flag of ----" and other similar conventions where only one word (the name of the country) differs. Fry1989 eh? 18:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Fry1989: Is that file current? What about roundels of Egypt since 1980?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
That is the current roundel of the Egyptian Air Force. Syria used an identical roundel for their Air Force from 1972-1980. There were previously two separate files, but they were improperly merged by JuTa despite my express request that they not be. "Roundel of Egypt" had a much longer upload history going back years, while "Roundel of Syria (1972–1980)" I only uploaded a few days ago. The fact that you were confused proves that the merge and name choice by JuTa is less than ideal. Now I am trying to clean this confusion up. Alternatively, you could un-merge the two files. Fry1989 eh? 01:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I should add that at least 5 different countries have used this roundel (red-white-black) at various times past and current. It isn't practical to merge them all! Fry1989 eh? 16:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • JuTa’s merge was shortsighted and, given Fry1989’s warning, very misguided. It should be undone ASAP. A suitable provision about how “identical” files must some times be kept separate needs to be added to COM:DUPE, with this case as a the striking example (identical national flags would work too, but those are likely saved from being identical due to Pantone-mania). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
So.....? Is there any intention of resolving this? Fry1989 eh? 15:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
@JuTa: Pinging you for good measure. Any thoughts on this issue? De728631 (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I dont see a the problem with the merge. The files were binary identical. This a the roundel of Egypt and was the roundel of Syria from 1972 till 1980. So: The current name is correct. What is the problem with it? PS: There are hundreds of new binary duplicate files each day. I regularyly work of Special:ListDuplicatedFiles with only a very few complaints. --JuTa 05:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
You know, sometimes when a user asks for something unusual but very specific that stands outside of normal procedures, it's because they know what they're talking about. You already confused another admin, which means there will be others. And as I mentioned, there's at least 5 countries that use(d) this roundel. Are you gonna merge them all and give them a long ridiculous file name like "Roundel of ... () - Roundel of ... () - Roundel of ... () - Roundel of ... () - Roundel of ... ().svg"? It isn't my fault when two countries use the same colour settings for their flags which causes the two roundels to be identical, but there are valid reasons for them to be two separate files. Also, you killed the file with the longer history! Fry1989 eh? 15:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, about the file history: You are correct, the other one was the older file. I will switch the kept and redirected version. ANd why not file names like "Roundel of ..., ..., ... and ....svg" when the same roundel was used by multiple countries. In any wikipedia article you can still use the old names if you like, because the redirects still exist. regards. --JuTa 16:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
"because redirects still exist": So do bots that replace redirects with the "canonical name". If there really cannot be duplicate files, than how about having the file at "Roundel used by various countries at various time to be used by the approbiate redirected name.svg" of simply "Q4223.svg"? --C.Suthorn (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Redirects do not work as well as we wish they might. Look at how "Roundel of Egypt" shows up as a link on Egyptian Air Force in the infobox. Now I am willing to make an extremely minor adjustment so that they are not 100% identical images, as I did with your other merge against my request of File:Roundel of Syria.svg and File:Roundel of Egypt (1958–1972).svg, but I don't see why I should have to. Fry1989 eh? 15:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@Fry1989: It stops the file from popping up on Special:ListDuplicatedFiles. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
That is true. What I had originally done was put a warning on the two files. Fry1989 eh? 19:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, I now resplittet the files - see File:Roundel of Egypt.svg and File:Roundel of Syria (1972–1980).svg. They are not binary identical anymore because of a new upload in the Egypt version. And I uploaded a unvisible different version of the new duplicate File:Roundel of Libya (1969–1977).svg. regards --JuTa 15:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Fry1989 eh? 15:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Revision delete request

Hi, Could an admin delete both older revisions at File:No permission button - Davey2010.png as the image in that image has been deleted,
I'd rather save someone the bother of speedying it all for something so minor :),
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done, you could add the file to Category:Media with unacceptable data in old versions too. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
You learn something new everyday :), Thank you 4nn1l2 I had no idea that even existed :), Anyway thanks for doing the honours it's much appreciated :), –Davey2010Talk 17:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Contribution deletion request

Hi Please delete my contribution in Wikimedia (2 files) as they are not used in any article and there is a dataprivacy issue in metadata. Thank you

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:OgreBot/Uploads_by_new_users/2018_November_28_21:00#Conflanais_(2_edits)

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conflanais (talk • contribs) 21:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done --Majora (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

IPBE

Whisper of the heart (talk · contribs) asks IP block exemption right in ticket:2019072810001201. Please take care of it. Thanks in advance! Bencemac (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The user already has [12] global IPBE right. They should explain why they need a local one. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply and that's right I have a globe right, however, Wikimedia Commons is a project I frequently use, I need to avoid its local IP blocklist, this is the reason that I request a seperate right here. --Whisper of the heart 11:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
If you are affected by a local rangeblock, you should send the details (block id and so) to the OTRS team, and an admin will review your request and will grant you IPBE right for a certain period of time (based on the block period of the associated rangeblock). But if want to circumvent the country-wide firewalls, I think global IPBE (which you already have) is enough. By the way, you are editing Commons. I fail to see why exactly local IPBE is needed. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, I get it, I will keep using global right and make another report when it doesn't work well, thanks. --Whisper of the heart 09:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I closed the ticket. Bencemac (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: Could you please check this request as well? Thank you very much! Bencemac (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bencemac: I think the request is legitimate, but I don't think we can give IPBE to non-existent users on Commons. Maybe we should change the block settings (untick "account creation") at least temporarily. Jdx, you are the admin who performed the block range because of LTA Nipponese Dog Calvero. What do you think? 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: I am not an OTRS member so I cannot see the ticket. Anyway, do you have 2001:B400:E200:0:0:0:0:0/40 in mind? If yes then go ahead and allow account creation. --jdx Re: 17:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Thanks, I will take care of the ticket. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

葉又嘉

Please take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:海峽中線.jpg. I've spent a lot of time communicating with User:葉又嘉, but he still believes that image was sourced from website is not "copyvio". Could an admin check Special:ListFiles/葉又嘉? Most of his uploaded images was sourced from website ans no proof provided via OTRS.--Kai3952 (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

File rename request

Hi, Could an admin kindly rename File:Bayreuth Dammallee 10 (MGK01231a).jpg to File:Bayreuth Dammallee 10 (MGK01231).jpg per "Criterion 3 (To correct obvious errors in filenames, including misspelled proper nouns, incorrect dates, and misidentified objects or organisms.) · Restoring original Filenumber which was changed due to a concurrent but faulty file move. Redirect at target can safely be overwritten/deleted" please?,
Not sure if any admins patrol the rename overwrite category,
Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Achim (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks Achim :) –Davey2010Talk 13:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

file rename

Hi, Could someone move File:Магілёў. Нямецкі аэрафотаздымак 1943-10-23 (21).jpg back to File:Магілёў. Нямецкі аэрафотаздымак 1943-10-23. Вярхоўе Струшні, будучыя ДАК і Мажэліт.jpg please?,
Catherine Laurence moved the file however the rename template remained and somehow changed itself[13] ?,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Catherine Laurence should've been clearer - Someone requested a filemove which you did[14] however the rename template didn't remove itsself and somehow I moved it back to the previous name[15], Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Anyone? –Davey2010Talk 20:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
If the situation is not explained in more detail, people can't understand it and act immediately. It's not urgent either. Apparently, the uploader made a mistake by requesting the rename of two different files to the same target name. The first file (originally uploaded as "File:Магілёў. Нямецкі аэрафотаздымак 1943-10-23 (21).jpg") is a full photo. The second file (originally uploaded as "File:Магілёў. Вярхоўе Струшні. Нямецкі аэрафотаздымак 1943-10-23.jpg") is a cropped version of that photo. From context and from the file histories, it can be guessed that the uploader wanted to rename the file with the full photo (where he inserted the rename tag), but not the file with the cropped version (where he copy-pasted the rename tag by mistake). Catherine Laurence renamed the cropped version, not the full photo. No fault on their part. They just fulfilled the mistaken uploader's request. Then, the uploader noticed his mistake and reinserted a new rename tag in the cropped version to have it moved back to its original name. Which Davey2010 did. No fault on their part either. They fulfilled the uploader's request to move that file back. As far as I can tell, the full photo (File:Магілёў. Нямецкі аэрафотаздымак 1943-10-23 (21).jpg) was never renamed by anyone. I suppose that the uploader still wants it renamed to the target name "File:Магілёў. Нямецкі аэрафотаздымак 1943-10-23. Вярхоўе Струшні, будучыя ДАК і Мажэліт.jpg". But that can't be done because the target is now occupied by the redirect caused by the unfortunate round trip of the other file. Hence the request to delete this redirect. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Asclepias Ahhhh I'm with you, I had no idea I moved 2 images - I thought it was the one image hence this request - I couldn't understand why the file name moved back given it usually pops up saying an admin needs to do it so figured I had to be missing something here,
Many thanks for your help. –Davey2010Talk 10:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Look, redlink. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Meh it all makes sense now . –Davey2010Talk 10:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
@Davey2010 and Catherine Laurence: I'm not performing whatever move is desired, I may just mess it up. You understand what was supposed to be done, so you should do it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Done. Everything is in the right place now, I think. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Resolved
- Thanks all. –Davey2010Talk 15:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Turkish Banknote

File:1000TRLira.jpg is an image of a Turkish banknote issued from the 1950s-1970s, hosted on English Wikipedia. According to Commons:Currency#Turkey, I believe it to be PD and that the {{PD-TR-currency}} license should be applicable. When I tried to use CommonsHelper, I get the error "duplicate-archive : E-5_1000_TL_on.jpg" and sure enough, at File:E-5 1000 TL on.jpg, there is a deletion log that says it was deleted as "Derivative of non-free content." User:Denniss is no longer listed as an Administrator, so I am coming directly here with my questions:

  • Is the deleted Commons image the same as the one hosted on Wikipedia?
    • If so, should it be a non-free image?
      • If it should be non-free, I'll revert my changes over there.
      • If it should be PD, what is the next step? Do we undelete the existing image here, should I manually copy it over, or something else?

Thanks in advance for your assistance. BigrTex (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same image. The deleted image on Commons had {{PD-TR}}, with the following text added:
Turkish Central Bank: For internet: 4) Orijinal banknotların boyutunda çözünürlüğünün 72 dpi (dots per inch –2.54 cm başına nokta sayısını-) geçmemesi koşuluyla elektronik ortamda çoğaltılması ve 5) Elektronik ortamda yapılan çoğaltmalarda, çoğaltmaların üzerine “ÖRNEKTİR GEÇMEZ” veya “SPECIMEN” ibaresinin; uzunluğu yapılan çoğaltmanın uzunluğunun en az %75’i, yüksekliği ise yapılan çoğaltmanın genişliğinin en az %15’i olacak şekilde, şeffaf olmayan (mat) ve banknotun hakim rengine zıtlık oluşturan bir renkte, çaprazlama olarak Arial veya Arial tarzına yakın bir yazı tipinde, çift taraflı çoğaltmalarda çoğaltmaların her iki yüzünde de yer alacak şekilde basılması, uygundur. Summary: If images available theese condition, you can use on the internet.
My guess is that either the old image can be undeleted (with proper license then added) or you can manually upload it. However, I'd wait for a second opinion - this is not my area of expertise. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@BigrTex: Hi, There seems to be nothing in Commons:Currency#Turkey that could support a conclusion about the copyright status. Commons:Currency is a mix of comments about counterfeiting laws and copyright laws. The specific section about Turkey has nothing about copyright. It deals only with specifications to avoid counterfeiting when someone wants to use images in Turkey. It relates to the government specifications in the context of the Law on the currency unit. Don't be fooled by the little "ok" tags on Commons:Currency. In the best cases they're meaningless or very approximative, and in the worst cases they're misleading. And they don't necessarily relate to copyright. To know if File:1000TRLira.jpg is free, you must look at the copyright law. And see if this image meets the criteria for public domain, taking into account possible exceptions or transitional provisions, if any. If there is no special provision, you will probably have to refer to the general criteria of PD-Turkey. A better place than Commons:Administrators' noticeboard for this discussion would be Commons:Village pump/Copyright. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both. BigrTex (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Strategy Working Group recommendation to change licensing rules

Hi all,

The Diversity Working Group has recommended for certain changes to our licensing rules to foster diversity and address systemic biases, in pursuit of Strategy2030. This includes hosting (and using) ND and NC media. Opinions on the recommendation are welcome, (until September 15), over the corresponding t/p.

Other recommendations are located over here and feedback is appreciated on the individual t/p(s).

Regards, Winged Blades Godric 05:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Pending OTRS requests

I would like to ask your help in few OTRS requests.

Thanks in advance and feel free to give me advices how I should handle them in the future! Bencemac (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bencemac: Although I'm not an admin but, I think that you should redirect the complain to the mentioned admin via email (tix 4). 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 07:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Move request

Could someone move Commons talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Horiwiki to Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Horiwiki? Thanks, 153.174.6.103 03:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Erect Adolescent Penis.jpg

WTF? We have an image called "erect adolescent penis" and someone created a deletion discussion? What's to discuss about an image that is likely illegal in most places Commons is available? @Elcobbola: You blocked the uploader, why didn't you delete this image? @Herbythyme: You deleted File:Bravo nude 17 year old male model.jpg, why didn't you delete this image too? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sachinthonakkara: @AshFriday: World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The one I deleted was a blatant copyright violation and the only one I saw. I trust that explains my actions to your satisfaction? --Herby talk thyme 15:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Erect Adolescent Penis.jpg a) was already nominated for DR; b) is not obviously illegal (adolescence is through age 19, or through age 24--i.e., containing ages 18-19 and 18-24, respectively); c) is not remotely the same image as File:Bravo nude 17 year old male model.jpg; and d) is, I'm happy to say, not of a subject area with which I have experience visually, or otherwise, assessing. Эlcobbola talk 15:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
It was described by the uploader as "This is the erect penis of a 17 year old adolescent male with trimmed pubic hair on the abdomen and un trimmed on the testicles". They later changed it to remove the age. Anything called "erect adolescent penis" should probably prompt you to investigate it and the uploader thoroughly enough to know that. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
You seem to be conflate adolescent with, say, pre-pubescent. To think use of the former obligates thorough investigation into whether an uploader has changed a description is not reasonable. I could have, alternatively, simply ignored the account and thus not have subjected myself to malapropos demands of perfection. The tone and approach here hardly incentivize future involvement in such issues, and one indeed wonders whether this has really been thought through. Эlcobbola talk 16:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Let's not argue about definitions. If someone uploads an image such as this with any indication that it might be an image of a minor, I think it should be deleted on sight as a precaution. The uploader may be able to successfully argue that it should be restored, if they care enough to try. I'm not asking for perfection, just a little common sense. Do we need another generic dick pic? No, so deleting the iffy ones isn't going to diminish the sum of human knowledge. I don't know why that isn't the standard operating procedure for admins in these cases. And anyone who encounters one should alert an admin. Thank you for deleting it and thanks for blocking the user. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I've requested comments from the WMF on this image; perhaps they have better resources to assess whether this image needs to be un-existed or not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
There are many images of human cocks and cunts available on commons, and this type of discussions seem to common (with regard to the ownership of the image). Sachinthonakkara (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Spamming

Please delete all edits by 124.168.154.80. They are made by a WMF-banned user (George Reeves Person, aka Projects) and are accusing other Wikimedians of heinous crimes. Nigos (t@lk • contributions • Uploads) 23:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 07:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Suppression de mon nom de Famille.

Bonjour, je vous demande s'il vous plait de supprimer mon nom "Tom Soum" de cette page https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Centre_bouillac.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.38.228.246 (talk • contribs)

 InfoThe user is actually referring to File:Centre bouillac.jpg, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@Yann, Christian Ferrer, and Ruthven: This file was nominated for deletion on 1 August. For those of us that can't read the French discussion there: Would it be prudent to close the DR either way now? De728631 (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
J'ai supprimé le nom de la description. La photo de remplacement a été copiée de Facebook.
I removed the name from the description. The replacement image was copied from Facebook. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Yann. I closed the DR, deleting the file. --Ruthven (msg) 08:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both. De728631 (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. De728631 (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Tmroo11

Only edits are spam and uploading a dubiously sourced image. Sandstein (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done File deleted, user warned. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

New photo or reuploaded copyvio?

Please verify whether this file is uploaded to Commons for the first time or is it a reuploaded copy of the deleted file from the same user. Unfortunately I don't remember how the deleted photo looked liked neither it's source page, so I can't check it personally. ~Cybularny Speak? 13:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done file deleted, user warned. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

User:JulianVilla26

This user tries to get almost all his contributions deleted by filing DR with highly questionable reasons. please stop him. --Denniss (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done User warned. I am closing all DRs. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Steven Halls

The account Steven Halls is in violation of the "well-known names" section of COM:UN. The user uploaded File:Talking moose.png, which appears related to the Talking Moose software by Steven Halls[16], but Steven Halls has confirmed that this is not his account (in OTRS ticket #2019081810004403). – BMacZero (🗩) 05:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done blocked indefinitely Gbawden (talk) 06:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done. I deleted the logo speedily as copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Image name swap request

The files:

- see s:Page:Aerial Flight - Volume 1 - Aerodynamics - Frederick Lanchester - 1906.djvu/58.

are named the wrong way round. Please can someone reverse them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Someone remind me again why file movers on Commons cannot suppress redirects in order to perform round-robin moves? GMGtalk 13:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: It appears to be a matter of trust. Special:ListGroupRights shows that no user group split off from Administrators has suppressredirect, and per Special:GlobalGroupPermissions Global rollbackers is supposed to have it here but that doesn't work for me here. :(   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Update: It appears I misunderstood: suppressredirect appears to cover only page moves, not file moves with MediaWiki:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, on (most?) projects with local images, there is an interaction between page mover and file mover where those with both rights can suppress redirects on file moves. I always found that odd personally, but obviously on a project with no page mover right, seems that it would make sense to bundle suppressredirect with file mover, so people like Andy don't have to come here asking for help. If we can't trust someone to check to make sure they're not screwing up a file redirect, I'm not sure they should really have access to file mover in the first place. GMGtalk 13:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing, 4nn1l2, and GreenMeansGo: Please see COM:VPP#Allow file movers to suppress redirects.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair use images

Hello.Please delete these images:

Thanks ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 please use COM:DR - some of their images are TV screenshots and images they've taken ...... –Dave | Davey2010Talk 12:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Davey2010: These images should be deleted quickly and need no discussion ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Apologies, Koky appears to have only uploaded TV screenshots ..... which should be deleted ... via DR, however all images in those categories have been uploaded by different people and therefore deleting them without any valid reason is inappropriate, You'd need to send them to COM:DR and if they're found to have issues they will then be deleted appropriately ..... I don't support this backdoor approach. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 13:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Davey2010: The fact that the images are not free is valid reason.The uploader does not have to be one if the images are not free.See Template:Fair use ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: The problem is that you have not provided a detailed rationale for exactly why all these disparate images should be non-free. For example, this source would seem to indicate that Amaury Thiérot died in 1939, meaning their works would be public domain in most jurisdictions (needs independent verification by a native reader). Similarly this work is dated 1918, meaning that pending additional information, it may likely also be public domain. This is why these need to go to COM:DR so that detailed information can be provided for why each group of images is non-free. It is not enough simply to state that vastly different media are non-free, especially when they may be non-free for potentially vastly different reasons. GMGtalk 13:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Split request

File:Jeffree Star 2018.png

Can this be split? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a reason. Furthermore, have you seen Commons:History merging and splitting? 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done per Commons:OVERWRITE MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete for moving again

W.r.t. Category:Honcques Laus, I created Creator:Lau Hong because it seemed to me that Lau Hong was the name commonly used in media and the judiciary. User:Toncinis copy-pasted it to Creator:Honcques Laus. I dont mind the move. As such, could you please delete Creator:Honcques Laus and move it properly? To keep the page history intact.--Roy17 (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. Sorry for inconvenience. Thank you. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 13:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Help needed with closing proposals

Hi. There are multiple proposals at COM:VPP that have gone a month or more with 100% support or opposition. Will some kind Administrators please help to close them (and implement the successful ones)? Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete + move to the free place

Hi, can any one

  1. delete the file File:Pangal-en-pangal.png
  2. move File:Curva de Variación Estacional Pangal en Pangal.png to the then empty File:Pangal-en-pangal.png

Both files have the same data, but "Curva de Variación Estacional Pangal en Pangal.png" is the new version +Qm and Qe, but the wrong name. Thanks in advance, --Juan Villalobos (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 04:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Big 12 Championships logo.svg

Not above the threshold of originality? -- CptViraj (📧) 11:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I would say simple by US rules. Taivo (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
To me, this looks more complex than United Airline’s logo. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Nothing special, so not enough originality. -- User: Perhelion 15:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Overcat, wrong names and excessive accounts

Hi. Some of the admins and editors might remember me requesting posting this on COM:ANU. According to Solomon203 on my talkpage, he stated that this pattern started in 2013, and edits are mainly uploading images of Hong Kong & Taiwan with similar naming conventions.

The accounts:

  1. have (at most) 200 edits
  2. name their files are very vaguely (File:TW 台灣 Taiwan 台北市 Taipei City tour view August 2019 IX2 48.jpg does not even provide what it's depicting at all)
  3. only stays "alive" for a few days (sometimes a few hours) and another account will be created (~800-1200 accounts could've been created by the same person since 2013)

In addition, the users have a habit of overcategorising their uploads, File:TW 台灣 Taiwan TPE 台北市 Taipei City 中正區 Zhongzheng District 台大醫院捷運站 NTU Hospital Station exit and entrance 公園路 Gongyuan Road August 2019 IX2 03.jpg had 6 unneccessary cats that were removed by me (I remembered there was once where I removed 10 cats from a single file).

Is this considered a user problem? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 16:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Recently discussed: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 74#Accounts seems like owned by the same person. More in archives of VP/AN. Nothing to do other than correcting the overcategorisation.--Roy17 (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
VFC has a useful search and replace tool that may be helpful for removing unnecessary categories Gbawden (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Would like to create "People associated with autism" category

It said I can't create it because it includes a blacklisted phrase. I checked and it looks like "with autism" is blacklisted.

About the category:

  • Its parent categories would include "Autism" and "People by association."
  • Its subcategories would include Steve Shirley and other non-autistic people who are involved in autism-related issues.
  • Pictures of Hua Ma, currently categorized under "Autism," would go here.

I'm prepared to start organizing and adding things as soon as the category is created.

Your help would be much appreciated! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissLunaRose12 (talk • contribs)

Nowadays about half of the population is somehow 'associated with autism', with or without a good reason. So it may not be a good idea to create such a category. Jcb (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest creating sub categories, say "Autism researchers" and "autism activists", first, and then creating the proposed category about keeping t empty. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Please add your comment to these two deletion requests:

In ticket:2019081610006165, we got a complain about the files with a legal threat (we will get sued). Please help me what to do. Thanks in advance! Bencemac (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Legal threats are a no go. I keep-closed the DRs. Probably the best thing to do is to send them to Legal. We as volunteers are not a legal party for them. Jcb (talk) 10:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jcb: Thanks for your answer, I answered and closed the ticket. Bencemac (talk) 06:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Wording of edit notice

On Template:Editnotices/Page/Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, please change "child pornography" to "depictions of child sexual abuse", per (for example) [17]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Mass-message request for WLM-US 2019

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

Thank you! ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 04:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

 Doing… Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 05:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Sent. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 05:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Three month old deletion requests

Hi all, can I ask as to why there is an extensive queue in deletion requests? I have two active requests that have gone (apparently) unnoticed for 2.5+ months... Thanks Nightfury (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Deleted. Sorry for the inconvenience, and thank you for your patience. We do have backlogs. We all are working on it. Thank you once again for your understanding. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 12:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
@Nightfury: I get that the time and attention of Admins is stretched thin, I really do. That's mostly why I volunteered to help out. Four times.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't expect to be loved for this .... but I miss INC :(.... Ofcourse we can cope without him but he always kept the backlogs down. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 16:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I think a lot of colleagues appreciated the work of INC before they went haywire. It's a pity that it ended this way. Jcb (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I spent a few hours yesterday going through the May/June backlog. Will have another go today. Gbawden (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Headshot of Alexander Kačaniklić at qualifications for the 2014 FIFA World Cup in Austria vs Sweden on 2013-06-07 (003).jpg

Very recently, User:Taivo deleted this file and its accompanying talk page without cause; the only reason for deletion was, that it was a 'crop'. The file had been in use by other pages, and I'd like the file and its talk page to be undeleted. -Mardus /talk 01:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, the User:Taivo did not notify me about the deletion in my talk page. -Mardus /talk 01:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I could not find the file in any of the deletion requests either, and so User:Taivo made it impossible for me to object to the deletion. -Mardus /talk 01:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I restored the fail and answered to Mardus in his talkpage. Taivo (talk) 08:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
* file ^
Thank you. AFAIK, the headshot image was in use as a thumbnail until it was delinked. It can be used to show only the player's face in tables, where the quality of the original image matters less. -Mardus /talk 18:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

User:KanKita

User:KanKita has upload pictures from Twitter for four times,is there any way to block him?--Softyu (talk) 06:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Softyu: I have warned the user. Blocks are a last resort - we need to warn users first rather than blocking. Gbawden (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Fmanuel090

Please remove their IP block exemption, They haven't edited in last 3 years. Thanks! -- CptViraj (📧) 13:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: had originally installed the exemption. --Túrelio (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Colinodonogay15

Vandalism-only account, see contributions. Maybe sockpuppet of User:Angela Criss. -- CptViraj (📧) 16:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Can i request global lock? -- CptViraj (📧) 16:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
@CptViraj: You may request one at m:srg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Requested, Thanks! -- CptViraj (📧) 16:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Gallowayesq and User:E6slidefilm

I wonder a bit about the user-accounts Gallowayesq (talk · contribs) and E6slidefilm (talk · contribs).
The 1st account was created in 2015 and had uploaded a number of images of young women, some fully clothed, some nude. He credited all these images not to his account-name, but to Gabe Galloway, who is (per en:Draft:Gabe Galloway (American political candidate)) a 1980-born artist and lawyer in Chicago. Most of the images have been deleted in 2015 per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gallowayesq, as they were — eventually erroneously — considered to be personal images and out of scope.
The 2nd account, E6slidefilm, opened in April 2019, as his first edit created the userpage User:Gallowayesq, suggesting they may have the same owner. Over the last days User:E6slidefilm uploaded a few images of nude young women, of which one (File:A 35mm slide shot by Gabe Galloway in 2016.jpg) might eventually be problematic per U.S. law. Most are credited to Gabe Galloway. But he also uploaded 4 images related to Gabe Galloway's alleged run for judge in Cook County (per :en article draft). However, to me most of these images rather look like a satire than a true candidature: File:Gabe For Judge Campaign Flyer -4.png, File:Gabe For Judge campaign meme.jpg.
Therefore, I wonder, is this is real or might this be a sort of hoax/campaign to damage him? Whats your opinion? --Túrelio (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

  • IMO :
1/ the only edit (creation) of User:Gallowayesq should be deleted, because it is private information given by another acoount with no evidence that it is the same person. If the info is right it is private information violacy, if it is wrong, then that is not really better.
2/ if the person depicted is not notable the images should be deleted as beeing "out of scope" (article seems deleted in Wikipedia), if the said artistic photos of women are in scope (example if the photograper is notable), then we should have an OTRS permission, otherwise the photos are likely out of scope too.
3/ "when something looks like a duck, then it is likely a duck", the second account seems to be from the same person, I suggest to block the last created account.
Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I agree with a block of E6slidefilm. I also wonder if the reason should be impersonation or sockpuppetry. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not impersonation or sock puppetry. Do like one minute of research on Google and its obvious they are the same person and the person is notable. ––Gabe Galloway — Preceding unsigned comment added by E6slidefilm (talk • contribs) 17:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Facebook.co1

Disruptive editing; see contributions and Template:©$, Template:Cc-by-sa-4.1, $. -- CptViraj (📧) 09:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 09:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 Thank you. -- CptViraj (📧) 11:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Diamondsource

Spam only account, see userpage, promotional username. -- CptViraj (📧) 09:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 09:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 Thank you. -- CptViraj (📧) 11:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments mass message please

Hi Admins

I'm looking after the Wiki Loves Monuments contest in the UK, and would like to send a mass message to previous entrants encouraging them to enter again. I've followed the recommendations here and here, and have created a page with the necessary information at User:MichaelMaggs/WLM-UK2019Message. Could an admin please send the message for me via Special:MassMessage? Many thanks. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Sent. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
That was very quick. Thank you. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments IE mass message please

Hey Admins,

I'm one of the organisers of Wiki Loves Monuments contest in Ireland, and it would be hugely helpful if we could send a mass message to previous entrants to enter again this year. Like Michael, I followed the recommendations here and here, and have created a page with the necessary information at User:Smirkybec/WLM-IE2019Message. Could an admin please send the message for me via Special:MassMessage? Thanks very much! Smirkybec (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

On it ~ Nahid Talk 20:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
and ✓ Done ~ Nahid Talk 20:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Smirkybec (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments Malta mass message

Hi Admins,

I am one of the organisers of Wiki Loves Monuments in Malta and, like the requests above, would greatly appreciate it if somebody could kindly help us send a mass message to previous participants encouraging them to participate again. I've created a page with all the necessary information (I think!) at User:Nevborg/WLM-Malta2019Message. It would be great if an admin could help us get this message out. Please let me know if I've left anything out or if more information is needed. Thank you so much! --Nevborg (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Done ~ Nahid Talk 20:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring by a single-purpose account

Please block the user who's single point of creating their account seems to be edit-warring and pushing a POV: list of User:Saemperson contributions. Cherkash (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Have you tried to discuss your differences with Saemperson? This doesn't seem to be the case. But I see that you have a history of edit warring too, and as they say, it takes two to tango. So please write a message to Saemperson and discuss the problem rather than calling for a one-sided block. That said, I have also protected the file in question for the time being. If anyone wants to present a different version, please consider uploading a separate file instead of overwriting the existing map back and forth. De728631 (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@De728631: The "Saemperson" is an SPA (single-purpose account) that has literally only done 4 reverts and all to the same file. Is there anything of substance to discuss with them? Again, seemed like an SPA from all I could see. There was actually a discussion on the Talk page that I've participated in earlier on, so the proposed changes had been discussed. And I also was the last person to make substantial updates to the image (updating it back in February to the G20 most recent status as of 2018). So if there is an onus to demonstrate any need for further incremental changes (apart from the factual updates to the G20 composition post the annual summits), it seems to be with those introducing those changes. Otherwise, drive-by edits by regular contributors DO deserve discussion – whereas drive-by edits by an SPA that seemed to be created for a single purpose (hence the SPA designation) hardly does. That's why I requested a block for this particular user only: to avoid having to keep rolling back unproductive reverts by an SPA. Cherkash (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@De728631: I still don't see anything having been done about Saemperson – not even a warning about the nature of the counter-productive edits, esp. since their account seems to be an SPA clearly created with a single purpose (based on their actions). Is theirs to be regarded as normal activity by our community standards? Cherkash (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I posted a question on their talk page directing them to the file talk page and to this page. I think that's sufficient for now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
    • It seems to be the issue of Crimea in regards to Russia. The discussion should follow the larger discussion of how Russia should be portrayed on all maps which seems to have Crimea in light green but let's talk on the image talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Redundant rights

2 users are having redundant rights, this was reported to User talk:Taivo#Tiny help by 大诺史 on 4 August 2019, but Taivo hasn't replied or removed redundant rights yet. Can anyone remove? Thanks! -- CptViraj (📧) 13:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

 Comment At first, in my opinion neither of them is redundant. But if I think incorrectly and the rights are still somehow redundant, then the rights must be requested in COM:Requests for rights. Taivo (talk) 08:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments Italia mass message

Hi everybody, just like my colleagues above I would like to send a mass message in order to invite the participants to WLM of last years to join this year too. I created this subpage, I hope this is all right. Could you help me with that? Thank you very much. --Marta Arosio (WMIT) (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Sent. I created User:Marta Arosio (WMIT)/WLM for you which is translatable (Italian and English), and sent that instead. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much!!—Marta Arosio (WMIT) (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response 4nn1l2. I have read the instruction and created User:T Cells/WLM-Nigeria2019Message. I'd be happy if you could help me with sending the message via Special:MassMessage. Thank you. T CellsTalk 19:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Sent. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks boss. Regards. T CellsTalk 19:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Translation

Is it possible to mark Template:Fcs for translation? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 16:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Howard61313

Howard61313 had many editing wars with me, mostly due to he thinks there is a problem with my editing of zh-tw(or, say, he thinks my Chinese translation is not precise enough). The problem is that he did not discuss first and he has a history of edit warring too(see: Special:Contributions/Howard61313). I warned him in an edit summary to stop edit warring, and asked him to discuss this. If he reverted my edits again, I would take action against him. I ask the admins to intervene and stop this behaviour pattern of Howard61313(his edit warring).--Kai3952 (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Stanbic jaime appears to be a sock of User:Hilpolith Rothschild

Forgive me if I'm in the wrong place - I'm not very used to this aspect of Commons. Stanbic jaime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Hilpolith Rothschild (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) upload identical pictures here and then use them in the (now twice deleted) en-wiki hoax article w:en:Hilpolith Rothschild. DuncanHill (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Sock blocked, all files deleted or nominated for deletion. Yann (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

policy-violating usernames

1) The name of the recently created account United Nations Officials (talk · contribs) is not acceptable without being formally confirmed per Commons:Username policy. By his edits, such as [18] and [19], he creates the impression of an U.N. insider. However, it might just be an impostor intending to promote some "Amin Ghasimi", whom all his uploads are about. An indef-block of the account per our username policy seems to be justified (on :en he's already blocked for "Promotional username"). --Túrelio (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I've now indef-blocke this accoutn as well, and recommended either a formal confirmation or choosing an acceptable username. --Túrelio (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

2) The 1 day old account Nasa department (talk · contribs) has the same problem. As it's highly likely to be an impostor, I've blocked this account and recommended the user to choose a non-infringing username. --Túrelio (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Personally had this been at EN I would've reported both because like you say they fail UP, For the top one I would ask them to change it given their uploads here, If they refuse then block them. Just my non-admin 2c tho. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 22:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
At the time of writing the above United Nations Officials wasn't indeffed, I still believe they should've atleast been given a chance to change it but what's done is done. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 01:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

User:RHS02

Someone want to take a look at this account? Several images uploaded have RHS photograph watermarks, and User talk:RHS02 is littered with deletion notices concerning questionable media. I smell a company account created specifically to add copyright photos, but thats my opinion. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Games Workshop images

I've had some disputes over the legality of photographs of Games Workshop toys. Currently I'm in one over the fate of File:Warhammer AoS Lind.jpg, which is a photo of an Age of Sigmar match. I emailed GW's legal department, and they don't consider such photographs to be an infringement of their copyright. Below is an email they sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

Good afternoon,

I have been in contact with [Kurzon] regarding a dispute he is having with Wikipedia over the use of an image and possible copyright infringement. We at Games Workshop, pursuant to our IP Policy, do not give express permission for the use of our IP except in the case of revenue-generating licences.

This aside, we do not consider that photographs taken by members of the public, hobbyists and customers constitute intellectual property owned by Games Workshop. We therefore do not consider the images in question to be property of Games Workshop and do not object to their use.

Kind regards,

Matt Galloway
Group Legal Advisor
Telephone: +44 (0)115 900 4924
www.games-workshop.com
Willow Rd, Nottingham NG7 2WS

I think this sets a precedent for all such images of GW properties. Kurzon (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

 Comment Actually the discussion should be in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Warhammer AoS Lind.jpg. The letter should be confirmed by OTRS-member and after that the file can be kept. Taivo (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Uploads by User:Nuno Coimbra

I use Commons quite infrequently, so I'm unsure as to whether this is the appropriate venue to bring this up. Anyway, I have come across blocked Nuno Coimbra (talk · contribs)'s uploads... which appear to be copyrighted, but I'm not quite sure. A lot of the uploads are named "©xxxxxx". If someone could take another look, that would be appreciated. Kind regards, MelbourneStar (talk) 11:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I took another look. © in beginning of filename does not mean much, the files are correctly licensed. By principle, files can be renamed. Taivo (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Voluminous GIFs

[NSFW] Please check File:Vaginal sex.gif and other files uploaded by the user. I had never seen a 175 MB GIF file before. 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: I would say that they can be tagged as no permission. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 02:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done. The file was deleted as copyright violation. No other action is needed at moment. This was the only contribution of Felicio87 (talk · contribs). Taivo (talk) 07:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I was suspicious of embedded data. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
If it is the size of the file that made you suspicious: A gif file, created from a video (i.e. without use of a tripod, with a non-static background, with changes to a large area of the picture from frame to frame, with a high resolution, without an unchanging color palette) will have this size, unless major (manual) optinization has been applied. Therefore you would normally use a video format (mp4, webm, ogv) for this type of content. --C.Suthorn (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@C.Suthorn: Thanks. Part of the problem was that the GIF file appered to be static in thumbnail mode, but was indeed non-static. You can try File:Time-Lapse.GIF which seems to be static (at least I see it static on my browser), but is indeed animated when you try to see it in full-size. 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
What are our limits on displaying animated GIFs?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Taivo: If I’m not wrong, I believe that the file was categorised and that category had a similar file. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 10:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Not at moment. Taivo (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments Greece mass message

Hi! Here a request similar to others. Please send a mass message in order to invite the participants to WLM Greece of last years: User:Geraki/WLM-GR2019-Message. Please notify if more information is needed. Thank you in advance. -Geraki TLG 12:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Sent. 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleted photo

Hello,

A photo I uploaded last night has been deleted. I tried to appeal the decision, but it says my file has not been deleted, but it clearly has been. This is my own photo. I do not steal photos. I do not know why I am subject to this allegation. I just wanted to submit photos and enjoy the process. This photo was titled, "Old Ranch Building On The Prairie." This is in an area in southern Arizona, on Empire Ranch. We were exploring the area in January, and I took this photo right before the sunset. Could you explain to me why I was accused of copyright infringement? Please advise.

Thank you, --Lori Shoaf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiking4ever (talk • contribs) 02:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  •  Comment The files you uploaded that are still here can be seen at [20]. One of your uploads has been deleted, "File:Old Ranch Building on the Prairie.jpg". It was deleted by @Gbawden: with the explanation "Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1): Copyright violation: COM:CSD#F1, Not own work - Author info clearly visible in EXIF." Perhaps you can ask User:Gbawden for comment. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Hiking4ever: The three still-visible files you uploaded at 02:48 (UTC) on 10 September appear to have come via Facebook. All your files appear to be under 512 KB and 1.2 MP. Why? Your Canon PowerShot SX40 HS can produce 12.1 MP 4000×3000 photos. Please review COM:HR.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Hiking4ever: . The file had Lori Shoaf as the copyright holder in the exif and no other meaningful exif data, making your claim that you took the work dubious Gbawden (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, There was a question about downloading photos from Facebook. Yes, I upload most of my photos there as well as other places to preserve them. Keeping them on my hard drive doesn't make sense as it has crashed before with all of my photos. I did download my photos from Facebook as it was easy access. All the photos I posted on the commons are only mine, and I don't know how else I can prove it. I do not know why my photos are smaller then they should be. I edit my photos in Lightroom and sometimes other website apps. I have also entered my photos in art contests where I have downsized my photo for the art show entries. I didn't realize that putting my photos on the commons from Facebook would cause such a ruckus. You can look me up on Facebook for proof, or tell me what to do to correct the matter. The photo in question, The Old Ranch Building On The Prairie, is mine, unless someone else has stolen and claiming it for themselves. Please give me advice on what I can do to get my photo back on and continue to contribute to the commons. Thank you. Lori Shoaf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiking4ever (talk • contribs) 01:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Deletion requests backlog

We have a bad backlog at Commons:Deletion requests including many several months old. While there are some detailed or tricky cases, there are also LOTS of easy cases (eg, obvious copyright violations, upload errors promptly requested for deletion by the uploader, baseless requests by anon trolls, etc) that don't need "copyright law expertise". Help is appreciated. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete

Can someone delete this TimedText:Son_clave.ogg.en.srt? Can't seem to get the SD template out. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 04:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 05:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

hide

Can someone hide the second version of File:Adrienne Lau.jpg? It might be copyrighted as similar images are found here. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
After 3 re-uploads I blocked this user for 1 week for to give them some time to read our policies. --Achim (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Login attempts

I had my old laptop stolen and bought a new one.

I have tried to login with the password I thought i remembered--but obvious got wrong. I seem not to have the option to get help with FORGOT PASSWORD.

What do I do to remedy this?

I am technologically challaned and nearly 80. Simple step-by-step directions if you have any.

Thank you

Susan Andrea Campbell

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Susan Andrea Campbell (talk • contribs) 04:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Refer to en:Help:Reset_password. The last section gives you a link to try. If you never had an email on your account, it may not be possible to reset your password. --Fæ (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
The user has email address set, so if they has access to the email account, resetting via email should work. But number of attempts to do this is limitted (to once a day, I think). Ankry (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be using talk page as advertising platform.

See Stitchmax. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Reverted and user warned. Next try will lead to an indef block. --Achim (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Remove move permission for user namespace

I mean this is definitely not a useful userright for normal (autoconfirmed) users (especially if they going to other users). This opens confusion and security lacks. Any doubt of removing this right per tech ticked (or other restriction method)? -- User: Perhelion 08:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Such actions can be disallowed with Edit Filter. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, I opened Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Restrict_move_permission_for_root_userpages. -- User: Perhelion 17:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Roy17 as license reviewer

Roy17 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

I submit a reassessment of User:Roy17 as license reviewer. The user has a drastic misunderstanding about Commons:Deletion policy, because the user keeps mentioning that a file can not be deleted unless one can establish that it is copyrighted. However, the policy clearly dictates that the burden of proof is on establishing the free use status of files. These are few examples of statements that the user made (in green):

  • "S/he should show some evidence how these old paintings' creators could possibly be alive in 1946 (i.e. born after 1836)." See [21].
  • "S/he has yet to provide any reason for the contention that these could be copyrighted." See [22].
  • "Cold Season doesnt provide any evidence why any file nominated could be possibly still copyrighted." See [23].
  • "On the other hand, Cold Season has not provided any evidence but simply pushed for a hardline enforcement of policies for centuries old artworks, despite his/her apparent knowledge." See [24]. Here, the user shows a rejection of policies.
  • Also, I should note that the user constantly makes unfounded and unwarranted remarks on me as a person or on my integrity, rather than civilly focusing on the deletion request discussion. See [25] and many others including the links here, going as far as reporting me for nominating files for deletion (which amounted to nothing).
  • "Patterns are almost identical. Probably result of different hand-drawn copies (摹本). Not a reason for deletion." See [26]. The user sees no problem in applying free use status to derivative works without a credible rationale and--as the word "probably" indicates--with conjecture. Disclosure: The nom was withdrawn, but not on the basis of the user's statements.

The user also has shown suppression of deletion nominations. These are examples:

  • See [27]. I want you to read the edit summary and then the file description (specifically, the author and source fields). That is a rejection of common procedure as "meaningless".
  • Here [28] (not a straight revert btw), the user removes a deletion template (revert part) and replaces the information with “unknown” source and author (user's own revision). These actions are from a license reviewer, who approved the absence of sufficient legal/source information and other relevant information.
  • The user also removes deletion templates while a deletion request discussion is ongoing. See [29] (not a straight revert btw). I think it is common decency to show that the file(s) in question are under a deletion request nomination to other users, until the outcome has been decided at least, since input is welcomed.

At the very least, there should be doubt. --Cold Season (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Has User:Cold Season been so kind as to provide any evidence why the old paintings s/he nominated for deletion could be copyrighted other than the vague no source claims after so many days?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=insource:/nknown\%7C%5BSs%5Dource/ links to many files that contain {{unknown|source}}. Take File:AmbrosianIliadPict47Achilles.jpg as an analogy. Can we as Cold Season did for those old Chinese paintings simply claim that it could be a modern artist's fraudulent creation and so delete it?
It has been pointed out repeatedly to Cold Season that, a mere claim of no source/permission is not enough for old artworks that have expired. (For Chinese artworks, if author is known, author must be still alive in 1946 so URAA applies. If author is unknown, artwork must be published in 1946 or later for URAA.)
Cold Season is also aware of what s/he is nominating are similar to what s/he has uploaded. (Read more at Commons:Deletion requests/File:HuiOfJin.jpg.)
If I had not become too involved, I would've closed the DRs, because contrary to what Cold Season alleges, they can be easily traced to the museums or published sources. Flogging a dead horse is pointless.
Cold Season did not only DR no source files, but also reliably sourced ones, and insisted even when his claim was categorically nullified Commons:Deletion requests/File:龍山—齊家系 玉琮.jpg.--Roy17 (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
(1) The burden of proof is on establishing the free use status of files. This is policy.
(2) In your (erronous) analogy with File:AmbrosianIliadPict47Achilles.jpg, it is clearly stated where the file is derived from. Either a reference, a source, a museum accession number, or anything identifiable about the work is sufficient. This file for example (that you edited) does not meet that.
(3) I have no desire to respond to your assertion of what I should or should not know about a particular file, as your basis of argument/persistent attack.
(4) You state "they can be easily traced to the museums or published sources"... Ok, you are free to do so, but you have not done so (instead, you're rather busy commenting on me as person, which is not a valid basis of argument).
(5) I present my arguments of how I understand things in a deletion nom. If I'm deemed wrong, then I'm wrong. If I'm not, then I'm not. That's why there are deletion request discussions (which btw is not a platform to attack me, like you constantly do by claiming that I maliciously open deletion noms and trying to shut them down). --Cold Season (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Do nothing. Cold Season needs to read COM:PRP: "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted". There has to be significant doubt, a technicality is not sufficient for deletion. There is no reason to delete an image of an ancient painting, unless you can make a plausible case why it may be protected by copyright. Also, the actions Cold Season talks about do not concern license reviews. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
For the record, I went through Cold Season's edits in user talk namespace. Many more files were speedy tagged or nominated for similar claims, and deleted without much discussion. Many were not used on any wiki articles so there were no delinker logs and I could not check wayback machine for a preview to verify his/her claims. Nonetheless, I saved File:丘處機.jpg, a full version of File:Qiu Chuji.jpg, which Cold Season tagged as no source. (It's said to be a Mongolian Empire era work, but even if it's not, the painting bears an 18th century person's signature.)--Roy17 (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
You can notice that File:Qiu Chuji.jpg (no idea which file this is, but if you say so) was deleted for "no source" which is a valid reason to delete, but you should be aware of COM:UNDEL if there is any issue (so good luck with using that case to attack my integrity, rather than go through proper channels for undeletion). I also should note that information on an artwork may be spurious (example) and therefore deserve closer examination (rather than uncritical acceptance) with credible information/source/reference or other. A license reviewer should at least recognize that it (tagging files with no source) follows procedure in accordance to policy. --Cold Season (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, doubt about the freedom of a file. No sources, no references, no identifiable information about a work; that raises doubt... like at [30] (that the user in question edited) or the other example cases above. However, there is only an assumption that it is ancient (which I very much contest in the absence of credible information). This is relevant to license reviews, as this concerns the understanding of the status of files. --Cold Season (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Vandals removing human asexuality from LGBT page

The last thing I want to do is get into an edit war, so I thought I'd bring this to your attention.

People are repeatedly removing the "human asexuality" category from the "LGBT" category. This is despite evidence that asexuals have been considered part of the LGBTQIAPN+ community for decades. I left a talk page message citing prominent LGBTQ organizations as evidence. A few years ago, a fringe movement to kick out asexual people began, with no mainstream organizations supporting it. The people removing the asexuality category may be misinformed about the general community, or they may be trying to use Wikimedia Commons to make a statement in support of this movement.

One editor was doing this until I left the talk page message and now an anonymous editor is doing the same. If I put the category back, I have a feeling someone will take it out again.

How do you recommend we proceed? MissLunaRose12 (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You are entirely correct that the mainstream view is to categorize asexuality under LGBT, and it should be the same on Commons. I've watchlisted the page, and reverted the suspicious IP revert. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for sending Wiki Loves Monuments mass message

Hi Admins,
I am looking after the Wiki Loves Monuments contest in Malaysia, and would like to send a mass message to previous participants encouraging them to Participate again. I have followed the recommendations here and here ,and have created a page with the necessary information at User:Ammarah Khalid/WLM-Malaysia2019Message. Could an admin please send the message for me via Special:MassMessage.
Many thanks.
Ammarah Khalid (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Sent. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 13:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Create tag for Add to Commons / Descriptive Claims gadget

The Structured Data on Commons devs were so kind to merge a software change of mine, which means that with next week’s deployment, I should be able to make the ACDC gadget tag its edits. However, the tag for that first needs to be created by an admin, hence this request. I’m not sure what exactly the tag should be – ACDC? Add to Commons / Descriptive Claims? gadget-ACDC? ACDC gadget? – but since users usually see an interface message, which can be changed/translated later, I guess it doesn’t matter so much. (For consistency with InfoboxExport and WE-Framework, I suppose ACDC gadget would be best – I don’t see any other gadgets on Special:Tags.) --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Ideally, that tag would also be created on Test Commons, so I can test the behavior there – but that wiki doesn’t have any administrators’ noticeboard (as far as I can tell), and only six admins and one bureaucrat, so I’m not sure how to make that happen :/ --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@Lucas Werkmeister: You should either create a task at phab and ask to be given the permissions you need or ask Jdforrester directly. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ammarpad: thanks, I’ve created phabricator:T233056. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
James was very helpful and made me a testcommons sysop almost immediately :) --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Unless someone disagrees, let’s say the tag should be ACDC gadget. (That’s also what I put in the above Phabricator task.) --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I don’t really have strong opinions, but I’d go for ACDC for consistency with Cat-a-lot and HotCat (both gadgets). Jean-Fred (talk) 08:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I’ve renamed (deleted + recreated) the tag on Test Commons accordingly. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done ACDC created. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

1989 and Jcb

NO ACTION:

Considering that Yann's block has been removed and there are underway two de-admin requests (Jcb, IV and Yann), no aditional action is required at this time. Érico (talk) 15:45, 19 September 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.

Jcb insults me (in a closed thread, which, in itself, is not proper), and when I try to remove the insult, and Jcb reports me on ANU, 1989 blocks me??? Something is definitely rotten in the state of Commons. I am waiting for, at the very minimum, an apology from 1989, and some sanction against Jcb for insulting me. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Can we please find some way to deescalate this on all sides? Yann probably shouldn't have closed a contentious UDR where they had already clearly weighed in on one side. Jcb should surely know that accusing someone of "wiping their ass with the community" is going to accomplish absolutely nothing but make the situation worse. 1989 probably shouldn't have unilaterally blocked one of our longest standing users without some kind of consensus, and definitely should not have accused them of vandalism, which I'm pertty sure we're all aware has a specific meaning across Wikimedia projects. Everyone at ANU who is proposing more blocks to even out the cosmic karma are not in compliance with our blocking policy. And everyone who is using it as an opportunity to snipe at others about their own personal quarrels aren't really helping to resolve anything at all.
Can we just close the lot, leave everyone gratuitous links to COM:MELLOW and move on with all the work that needs to be done? C'm on guys. You all are supposed to be setting the example here. GMGtalk 18:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I do, Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 4). In light of that dRFA and Commons:Administrators/Requests/Yann (de-adminship), this thread can probably be closed. The two admins in conflict are up for deadminship, 1989's block was reverted by Natuur12, 1989 presumably has learned that blocking an admin should not be taken lightly and I think that's the end of that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Astana -----> Nur-Sultan

Hi, please move files in this category from "Astana" to new name "Nur-Sultan". Also please try to move Astana to Nur-Sultan (I can not do it). --Patriccck (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:Patriccck, the category had already been moved on 11 May 2019. The gallery name should be written using Cyrillic script rather than Latin. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, please move Астана to Нұр-Сұлтан (I can not do it). Can someone check all files in Category:Astana and rename all files that contains Astana to Nur-Sultan? Thank you! --Patriccck (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Gallery page moved. Files should not be renamed. Please refer to Commons:File renaming for renaming criteria. Files with "Astana" in their names are still meaningful and not ambiguous. 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Rev delete

Can someone delete the second revision of the following files:

File:Dikanka Near Bridge Perm photo.jpg
File:Master and Margarita Near Bridge Perm.jpg
File:Perm Theatre Near Bridge new.jpg
File:Players Near Bridge Perm.jpg

Don't think the files are own work and first 2 might be fair use. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Next time, just add them to Category:Media with unacceptable data in old versions, please. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Didn't know the cat exists. Thanks! 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Weltweite Klimademo am Augsburger Rathausplatz 20092019.jpg

File:Weltweite Klimademo am Augsburger Rathausplatz 20092019.jpg is protected, because it is on the main page of german wikipedia "in the news" section. Therefore only an admin can do this change:

from:

[[Category:School strikes for climate in Augsburg|2019-09-20]]

[[Category:Demonstrations and protests in Augsburg]]

[[Category:Global Climate Strike on 20 September 2019]]

to:

[[Category:School strikes for climate in Augsburg 2019-09-20]]

--C.Suthorn (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done and corrected cat to Category:School strikes for climate in Augsburg 2019-09-20. --Túrelio (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

About my toy photo problems

Dear all admins, I am not understanding my dolls collection photographs for somebody send to delecation request in the wikicommons, Because I see some my toy work is taken to myself, but my some soft toys work is not from famous brand in toy company, I just think it was from commonly brand in the some county, Some my toy photographs is famously brand by the county, but my photographs is taken from myself, why should be somebody to remove them for wikicommons, my toy photographs is not for copyrighted, I must be using the free for using for anybody to using, but i am not unstanding why reason to removing my soft toy photograph from my account, Can you give me some real reason why should be keeping my toys work from my accounts, thanks you, Geoffreyrabbit,15:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Overwrite a file

I request an administrator to overwrite File:Flag of Honduras.svg with File:Real flag of Honduras.svg. About a year ago I did the same request, and, as recommended, tried to reach consensus on this talk page. As I explained there, the flag doesn't have an official 'digital' color, but it does have a shade that is commonly used, as shown by the sources I gathered in the file summary, and it is way diferent than the one some not-honduran user arbitrary chose years ago for the Honduran flag to be. I live in Honduras, and I can assure this is the flag that is seen everywhere. So, I hope this time the solid proof of the sources can be enough to fix a blatant mistake. --Kes47 (?) 03:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't see a consensus I the discussion you started. I think the best way to go forward at this point is to try to convince the projects using the flag to use the darker version instead of the current one. As admins we should not use our tools to decide a content dispute. Sorry. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Too bad, I thought you were allowed to use your common sense. The wrong version was settled without consensus, but I guess I'm gonna have to try to convince others. -Kes47 (?) 18:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Rename requests!

There are high number of rename request by User:আফতাবুজ্জামান on User:Titodutta's audio files. I do not understand request since it is non-English and it cannot fit with Criterion 1. Also, it has wrong request too. Eg: Err 1. I suggest to decline requests. It disturbs other rename request since the amount is huge. --AntanO 05:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@AntanO: ~650 files have already been renamed by various file movers, such as, QueerEcofeminist and আফতাবুজ্জামান. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 07:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
It seems there was some discussion about this on enwiki: d:Wikidata talk:WikiProject West Bengal#Bengali pronunciations Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I handled some of those requests, I don't think those should be declined for several reasons,(as per my understanding of whole process!) a) those requests came out technical glitch and need of naming files in local language. b) those were up-loaders requests as it was discussed and according to that User:আফতাবুজ্জামান made those requests citing that discussion. c) and error reason is expected in such huge number of rename requests, and the user has already taken responsibility of renaming those files. d) I guess classifying these renaming requests under our five reason structure would be difficult. thanks QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 09:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I will try to finish these quickly. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments mass message please

Hi, I'm running the Wiki Loves Monuments contest in Sweden, and would like to send a mass message to previous entrants encouraging them to enter again. I've followed the recommendations here and here, and have created a page with the necessary information at Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments in Sweden/Mass message. Could an admin please send the message for me via Special:MassMessage? Many thanks. /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Sent. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: Huge amounts of thanks! /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Flickr washing

Files came from a source that is blacklisted and seems confirmed to be an account of TransmitterIII, an indeffed user. Recently Nah-tasha, uploaded the above files and I've tagged them as speedy but (s)he manually converted it into a DR claiming that the author is authentic and no reason why it is blacklisted. I would say that since the files have an unknown source, it should be deleted under PCP. Comments? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@大诺史: Not much to say without links to the photos on Flickr and involved users. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
The files were linked to this photostream (Blaine H. aka blaineiii). Blacklisted at Commons as impersonation account used for license laundering by TransmitterIII. De728631 (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done? Gbawden deleted both files due to failing license review. Taivo (talk) 10:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Cropping an image to create a new improved version.

To whom this may concern,

The purpose of writing this message is suggesting that someone improves a certain image by cropping it at the bottom and at the top, for in those areas it has black pixels which add no value to the image. By doing this action, the new version would be better than the original and no vital information would be lost.

Link to the image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pobedata_nad_syrbia.JPG

Thanks for your time and dedication.

Yours, — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 46.6.237.169 (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

This kind of request may be done in Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop Ezarateesteban 19:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Cropped. Located at File:Pobedata nad syrbia (cropped).JPG. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 02:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Counting !votes in a desysop

As we have two currently running desysop requests, now would be a good time to clarify how the !votes are counted. Where there are "neutral" !votes, do these count to the total vote count (thereby actually being fully equivalent to "keep" votes and the word "neutral" having no meaning), or are only "keep" and "remove" votes counted to test if the 50% is met or not?

I did check Commons:Administrators/De-adminship, but "majority consensus" does not have an explicit definition, so this may be down to past precedent rather than guidelines or policy. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

For the reason you outlined above, I'd say that "neutral" votes should just be ignored. I think they are a fine way for people to give their opinion if they are undecided (and I myself was tempted to add such a vote), but I don't think people using "neutral" would want their votes to be counted as either "keep" or "remove". Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Neutral votes do play a role when talking about the quorum. But they should not be counted to determine if the majority of voters approve the proposal or not. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
The guideline actually kinda does say. "..it may seek de-adminship in the same way as adminship is sought." (policy) Combine this with " Neutral comments are not counted in the vote totals for the purposes of calculating pass/fail percentages." (guideline) and there's your answer. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Agree with the above. Counting neutral or abstain votes only really makes sense when you have a finite small set of voters, such as a church or club meeting and where a quorum is necessary. Here we have a practically boundless set of possible voters and those who are neutral or abstain may simply be not commenting at all. -- Colin (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Neutral is neither support nor oppose Ezarateesteban 15:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

End date for desysop requests

As Yann has stated that "I am quite busy in real life now and for several weeks at least, so I am sorry if I don't answer rapidly to questions." diff.

Being held to account and replying to questions is critical for this type of adminship request and for COM:Administrators to be seen to be applied in that all those with sysop tools are accountable for their use. Unlike running a RFA, Yann did not agree a start date for the request and consequently it seems unfair to expect answers to be given to questions within the normal RFA period. Are there policy based reasons as to why the end date could not be changed based on discussion within the request itself, better to fit with Yann's availability to answer questions fully? It is already standard for inactive administrators to be given 30 days to reply to the normal notification, which may be a more reasonable period in this case. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Do as you wish, but Yann and Jcb must be in equal position and end date must be same for both. Taivo (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Now that Yann is unresponsive to questions, will the request be closed without him answering those questions? T CellsTalk 17:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@Fæ and Taivo: The voting period is over. The outcome for both seems quite clear, the votes are split one third/two thirds for both. But one is almost enough to succeed if it were an RFA, while the other is a massacre. It's also interesting to see that 64 users decided to cast a vote on Yann's page, while only 48 users cared enough to vote on Jcb's page. This strikes me as odd, because Jcb is better known around here as far as I can tell. I suspect that some users didn't want to vote "remove" for whatever reason, but couldn't be bothered to defend Jcb. It's probably a bunch of uncast "neutral" votes in that sense.
I don't think extending the vote period would make any difference. Maybe if we invited enwiki over to vote for some reason, but I don't think Jcb is very popular on enwiki either, so even that quite possibly wouldn't make a difference in the outcome. @T Cells: I would think so, but I hope Yann will respond to you (on your talk page or here) anyway. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree that fiddling with timing would be unlikely to make any difference to outcome for these cases. With respect to numbers of votes, both had plenty of votes which is a good thing. Why people choose to not vote is probably complex, I raised a question in both, but decided to not vote, partly due to interactions with both administrators over many years and to emphasise that my views were not personal. --Fæ (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Recently admin Ellin Beltz closed the deletion request of File:The East Is Red (1964).webm as kept. There are several other (un)deletion requests relate to this kept judgment.

Thanks!

--Techyan（Talk） 03:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Ellin Beltz's closure was simply wrong.
The logic is simple:
  1. A song's copyright is enjoyed by its composer, lyricist and singer, per Chinese copyright law articles 3, 9, 10 and 11.
  2. The authors of works that could be isolated from a movie, such as screenplays and music, are entitled to exercise their copyright independently, per Chinese copyright law article 15.
  3. The files contain songs whose authors were alive after 1969 (so still copyrighted in China). (In some cases they are still alive right now.) And if URAA restoration is considered, not PD in US either.
And those Chinese users were exactly explointing it by cutting the song segments from the movies, thus violating their copyright.--Roy17 (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
The keepers' contention can be simplified as that, the songs are copyrighted, but the movie clips of the songs are not violating their copyright because the movies were out of copyright. By this logic, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgDrYYN41CI could well be uploaded on Commons since it's PD-US-Army and so Taylor Swift's and writers' rights are not infringed upon. Is that right?--Roy17 (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I did the best I could with a long, complicated set of arguments. I am happy to see that you are discussing it again for consensus on closure. Would not perhaps COM:UNDEL be a more suitable venue for the discussion? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Klarname in Metadaten

Hallo !

Ich habe versehentlich ein Photo hochgeladen, in dem mein Klarname in den Metadaten erscheint. Damit geht meine Anonymität verloren.

Datei: Wildapfel 2.jpg

Ist es ihnen möglich die Datei zu löschen? Ich werde dann das Bild ohne Metadaten wieder in Commons hochladen. Ich arbeite derzeit in wikibooks, Regal Natur: Mehr wilde Natur durch Gartenrenaturierung

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Phaceliasdream (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Phaceliasdream: Bitte einfach eine neue Version mit gleichem Namen ohne Metadaten hochladen, ich werde die alte Version dann löschen und verstecken lassen. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Erledigt. Vielen Dank für die schnelle Hilfe, Grüße,--Phaceliasdream (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Automatic undeletion

Commons currently uses categories like Category:Undelete in 2020. This is somewhat cumbersome, and often forgotten.

I want to make a feature request on Phabricator for a feature that allows deleting a file but having it automatically undelete itself at a given date. (when the copyright has expired) This would probably best also get integrated into delreqhandler. Anyway, such a feature request only makes sense if admins think it's a good idea and they would use it. So.. would you? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 Question Not an admin, but I have a question. What about files that are "own work". 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 09:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@大诺史: This generally doesn't apply to own work. This is about old works of which the copyright expires. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I think this adds too much delay to the workflow. We should focus on current problems before spending time on future content. I'm also afraid of the reverse feature, "auto-delete after 6 months", which I definitely don't want to see, but which comes into play then, too. --Krd 10:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the undeletion itself is problematic, just adding the category. I often don't do it, because it is quite cumbersome and I prefer to work on the backlog. A "one click + enter a year" functionality (possibly integrated into delreqhandler) would be more useful to me. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Good idea. Krd, do you have anything against that? This could just be requested on MediaWiki talk:Gadget-DelReqHandler.js. @Perhelion: would that be a reasonable/feasible request? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I have to say that something built into the DR closer script would be fantastic. A separate button that says "Delete and add undeletion category" (or something shorter) would be great. And I'd have to agree with Sebari here. I work off of the main month list and I rarely edit the individual DRs directly so I tend to forget adding the undelete category. --Majora (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Menace

The user Bộ Công An 118 fakes Ministry of Public Security of Vietnam and menaces Vietnamese member. Please ban him. Tamajetlua (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

ban mu lờ con đĩ mẹ mày Tamajetlua Bộ Công An 118 (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done: Bộ Công An 118 (talk · contribs) indef-blocked for threats/intimidation. Was already blocked on :en. Due to the severity, reported to WMF-legal and asked for a global lock.--Túrelio (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Now globally locked. --Túrelio (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Batch rename needed

I accidentally uploaded images with wrong date in name. Can someone change all files in Category:FridaysForFuture protest Berlin 27-09-2019? The "08" in the date needs to be replaced by "09". I think, as they are uploaded so recently, there should no redirects be created. And Category:FridaysForFuture protest Berlin 27-08-2019 also should be deleted. Thanks a lot! --GPSLeo (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Requests like this which do not need sysop access and cannot be done via COM:VFC can be raised at COM:BWR, in fact mass actions of most types are best raised there. I have moved the files, but cannot remove the redirects. --Fæ (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Redirects handled. --Majora (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you! --GPSLeo (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

License reviewer user script as a gadget

Hello, Can we add a gadget for image reviewer? Any thoughts? Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 16:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer if it wasn't. I don't really want to be an interface admin and making it a gadget will block me from making changes. The whole reason I took it over was because it was being unmaintained and I think I've made some, albeit small, improvements. To relock it behind editinterface seems inappropriate. --Majora (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Unblock of PantheraLeo1359531

English
Hello, this is PantheraLeo1359531, my account was globally locked (https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&target=PantheraLeo1359531). After assistance of the Wikimedia team, the most presumably reason for this lock is the IP ban because the IP might be used for vandalism earlier. In fact I use a VPN for privacy reasons. I want to ask, if an IP unblock is possible, and if not, what other possibilities there are so that I can log in back into my Wikimedia account. My account is linked with an Email adress, so I hope that admins can contact me, if necessary.

Regards, PantheraLeo1359531
--188.172.220.70 11:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

German
Hallo Wikimedianer, hier ist PantheraLeo1359531, mein Account wurde global gesperrt (https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&target=PantheraLeo1359531). Nach der freundlichen Unterstützung vom Wikimedia-Team via Email ist zu vermuten, dass die höchstwahrscheinliche Ursache für die Sperre die Sperrung von IP-Adressen ist, von denen möglicherweise Vandalismus betrieben wurde. Ich benutze tatsächlich eine VPN, die diese Hypothese unterstreicht. Über diesen Weg möchte ich fragen, ob eine Entsperrung der IP-Adresse möglich ist, und wenn nicht, welche Alternativen es zur erfolgreichen Anmeldung sonst noch gibt. Mein Account ist mit einer Email-Adresse verlinkt. Ich hoffe, dass Administratoren mich notfalls auch hierüber erreichen können.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen, PantheraLeo1359531
--188.172.220.70 11:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@PantheraLeo1359531: . I see no reason for a global block in your contributions or those of your IP, but I don't think we can give IP block exemption to a globally-blocked account. I will ask the blocking Admin on meta to look at this again. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: . Thank you for your support :). --188.172.220.70 12:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: PantheraLeo1359531 was globally unlocked.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Mass-message request for WLM-US 2019

Hello! I'm one of the organizers for Wiki Loves Monuments in the US. Could the following message be sent out to all of last year's contributors? This is a reminder that the 30th is the last day for folks to upload photos for the event.

Thank you! ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 05:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Sent. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 05:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@Tulsi Bhagat: Now that was quick. Thank you! ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Games Workshop images

A few weeks ago there was a discussion regarding whether File:Warhammer AoS Lind.jpg should be deleted. It's an image of a Warhammer Age of Sigmar match. The photo itself is free by the generosity of the chap who took it, but the figurines in it are of copyrighted design. In the end, the admins decided to keep the image because Games Workshop sent OTRS an email saying that they did not consider photographs of their models to be breaches of their intellectual property (see Ticket:2019082110004933 and Ticket:2019090410007569). I think this applies to all images of Games Workshop models (books would be another matter, of course). If the admins agree with me, I request the creation of a template that communicates Games Workshop's policy. Like, we have a template {{PD-USGov}} that tells people that anything by the US federal government is automatically public domain. I think we should do one that tells people that it's OK to upload images of Games Workshop's sculptures. Kurzon (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Mass-message request for WLM-UK 2019

We'd like to thank all the competitors who contributed images to the UK section of Wiki Loves Monuments. Could an admin kindly send out this mass message, please? Many thanks. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Sent. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Can someone please

take a look at this Deletion request? - Commons:Deletion requests/File:Harris-Klebold-Target-Practice.jpg. Seems to me that the image has some serious issues including possible copyright problems but I am no Commons expert and could be mistaken. Am asking for admins to take a look at the request and give their feedback, take action or whatever. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Deleted by 1989. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Request

Hello to everyone, I have uploaded the below files from external sources to Commons. The files have different license which needed to be review by a LR or Admin. Any LR/Admin please review the files:

We have over 20,000 files waiting for license review. There is no need for admin intervention to prioritize these specific files. Additionally, please provide proper categorization for your uploads - several have overly general and/or duplicate categorization. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Reviewed only this time. Please keep in mind as suggested by Pi.1415926535. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 03:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

 Thank you.--√Tæ√ 11:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Austria-1932

This DR is getting to be almost a year old at this point and I'm not comfortable enough with Austrian law to really make a decision on this. So instead, I thought I would post it here with a plea to my admin colleagues. If another admin feels they are up to this would you mind taking a look? This DR has the potential to affect over 1,500 files so additional input by other individuals would also be welcome as the decision could have a massive impact on articles throughout the projects as well as on other uses of the images elsewhere. Thanks. --Majora (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I will look at it later this day. I have not read the discussion thoroughly, but my first impression was that a majority of people thought that the template was invalid. In that case I think the best way to move forward is to:
  1. Change the template text.
  2. Move all files to yet another maintenance category (via the template).
  3. Review files individually, since they might fall under another license and it would be a shame to lose them. Delete other files via DR (in chunks).
  4. Delete the template when all files have been reviewed (in a few years or so).
I think this is better than to rush to delete those files, which have been here for several years. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_75&oldid=414666279"