Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 66

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

Find a solution regarding INeverCry

I think the Commons community must find a permanent solution for the increasing Sockpuppets of INeverCry. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 07:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I think if a {{Checkuserblock}} on an IP range were an effective option, it would have been done by now. My understanding is that INC has been using a number of proxies, so we can't stop him from editing. Since the Daphne affair, he's been constantly back and forth between productive editing, disruptive vandalism using VFC, Cat-a-lot, etc, and sometimes vicious harassment. It's clear that he's not going away, and he's not going to beg our forgiveness. As I see it, here are our choices:
  1. Maintain the status quo.
  2. Declare him our first community-banned user, and start rolling back every edit he makes without regard for its content.
  3. Unblock the INeverCry account and see what happens. Continue blocking socks; bad behavior would be rewarded with temp blocks on the main account.
  4. Allow him a fresh start under a new username. Those of us familiar with his editing patterns would recognize him, but we'd take a "don't ask, don't tell" approach. Of course, if he ever requests adminship as he did with Daphne, it would be called out.
None of these seem particularly appealing to me. But unless someone has a better idea, I think we as a community need to decide on one. Guanaco (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe this user simply wants to inform the community on different things without stepping in the foreground? Is there a history of emailing with this particular user? Lotje (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Given the disruption he causes with the bad edits he makes one day, it outweighs the good edits he might be making another day. I would actually (didn't think I would say this ever) be in favour of a community ban of this user. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
My preference would be a temporary ban that resets if he evades it. He takes three to six months away, and if he wants to return at that point he can. Or he can be just another LTA — his choice. Guanaco (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
My 2c's is that he has been given (a lot) of such deals in the past (see block history). They may work for a while, but the user always defaults back to being an LTA. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
No action needed, certainly this case is not a good reason to start inventing ban policies on a project where none exists. Like anyone else who uses socks for disruption, the most effective long term solution is to quietly correct and ignore. INC is free to have an anonymous clean start any time they are ready to do so, similarly they are free to log on to IRC and talk about their issues in private channels with other Commons contributors if they want to. The latter may be a good step to try, especially INC for whom this all looks more sadly self destructive than anything else. --Fæ (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I completely agree with Fæ.Wikicology (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
+1. Yann (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
@Fæ: Some of the socks were "anonymous clean start" accounts, doing nothing but good edits. I let them carry on in the past, except where there was vandalism/harassment. I decided to try this again, with User:Linda Evans. Each time, they are tagged {{sock|INeverCry}}, often by Sro23 (whose input would be helpful here). Once tagged, INC either abandons the account or switches to vandal mode.
According to the blocking policy all accounts used to evade the initial blocks on INC/Daphne are subject to block for "Block evasion/Abusing multiple accounts", and the sock tags are considered standard under that policy. So for "no action needed", we would need to agree to call off the hounds and stop tagging except in cases of misbehavior. I'm fine with this option, and I'd be willing to speedily delete "{{sock|INeverCry}}" if it's applied to a constructive account. But that's not something I can do without community support, or an unblock on the primary blocked account. @Jcb: , do you mind if I unblock the Daphne account and give this a try? Guanaco (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I would  Oppose such an unblock. As long as they do not stop the abuse, unblock is not an option. Jcb (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
This humble bee would  Support an unblock. Lotje (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment, I don't think unblocking the Daphne account without a comment from INC is the best way to go. AFAIK, INC has never requested to be unblocked since they were blocked. Of course, I would be glad to welcome them back to the community but the request to return/unblocked should come from them. Wikicology (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Guanaco that we have no good solution at hand. I agree also with Fæ that we could live with a “clean start”, letting one of these accounts work as long as the edits are ok. But much like Jcb I would oppose the unblocking of any such account when they started to move on in vandal mode or resume harassing because they have been called out. Bans are a nightmare. Who wants to undo legitimate edits or valid deletion requests? And there is always a risk that this might hit someone who is not INC. But I have one proposal to make: We could re-open talk page access for INeverCry, leaving INC a channel where INC can talk to us without using socks. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
    I've enabled talk page access for INeverCry, in case he wants to talk to us. But I recall him saying via one of his socks that he's not interested in begging forgiveness, and that he doesn't want to be treated as a third-class editor due to his past reputation. I know some of us want an open dialogue with him, but it doesn't seem likely or even really productive. He knows well enough what is acceptable behavior - what is there to talk about? Guanaco (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for trying this. INC may continue to misbehave, but being nice is never a mistake. --Fæ (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I see a comment above: "INC is free to have an anonymous clean start any time they are ready to do so". This is absolutely false. Commons has no policy that permits a clean start. Some are not keen to invent a community ban policy, perhaps they should bear in mind we have no clean start policy either. Whoever the person is behind INC, they are not welcome to edit here as far as I'm concerned. As noted above, INC has at times engaged in vicious harassment of users here, myself included, and I have reasons to suspect previous vicious harassment of myself and others, long before the recent ban, was also INC. Those welcoming INC back provided they do good edits are IMO condoning this harassment and appeasing a cyber bully in order to find a over-simplistic solution to a complex problem.
The closest the Wikimedia community has to a policy on clean start is on en:Wikipedia:Clean start. The vital sentence there is "A clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here) in place against the old account.". It is not a method by which those who are blocked may short-circuit community approval of their return. In addition, the Wikipedia concept is very much around finding somewhere else on Wikipedia to edit so you don't get into the same trouble. The problem with Commons is that unless INC wants to become a photographer, he's limited to the maintenance of images which is exactly what he did before. And we know INC is not happy being a normal editor but seeks to power that comes with adminship. Hence the many restorations of his admin bit. And we know INC promises to only engage in non-contentious admin actions but sooner or later he's blocking and unblocking against community consensus and it all turns pear shaped. There is absolutely no way INC is ever going to be an admin again, so he will continue to be frustrated that he's stuck doing limited edits.
The only solution, AFAICS, is for those who know INC to continue to persuade him of the need to find a new hobby. INC the person is banned, whether we make it formal with policy/vote, or not. The sooner he deals with that the better. -- Colin (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Strong oppose. I'm not a great contributor to Commons, so please weight my comments in that light, but I'm truly astonished that anyone here is considering allowing this person back into this project after such a disgraceful (and ongoing) exhibition of wanton destruction. In my view, INeverCry's actions are what the "Exit" door was made for - and it should be firmly closed afterwards. This person deserves a global lock, not an unblock! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Strong oppose. Bans and blocks apply to the person irrespective of what accounts are used. INC has clearly demonstrated that he cannot be trusted to edit any Wikimedia projects. If they create more socks we just have to keep blocking them as soon as they are recognised as his work. That's the way it works on Wikipedia. A global block and ban may also be necessary. Kudpung (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
We both know that pseudo voting about this is slightly irrelevant. INC has plenty of experience blocking accounts as an admin and understands how checkuser tools work. INC can choose to behave and have an anonymous clean start regardless of what any of us have to say about blocks or bans. --Fæ (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Kudpung (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
What most people find so repellent (and thus encouraging oppose votes) is the apparent invitation by some above for INC to have an "anonymous clean start" freely whenever he likes, or to consider unblocking him to see if he behaves this time. He isn't "free" to do that, because the community do not grant him that freedom. He blocked. He may attempt to do it, by socking, with some limited success, but only in the same way that a thief may shoplift without detection for a while: being able to do something isn't the same as being free to do it. Whenever INC edits with a sock account, whether good edits or bad, he is breaking policy by evading his block, and he is acting against overwhelming community wishes that he leave. He is not having an "anonymous clean start" when he does that, so let's not use that phrase or encourage that behaviour. I hope that is crystal clear to INC and anyone in contact with him. -- Colin (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. It's clear that there is no consensus to allow INeverCry to return at this time, nor for any extraordinary measures such as a hard ban. Sockpuppets may be reported at COM:AN/B, or you can request CheckUser investigation at COM:RFCU. Guanaco (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This DR

Would an Admin or reviewer be willing to re-review Raeky's image uploads from 2009 to June 2010 as I mentioned in the DR above. The problem with his image uploads is that he reviewed his uploads himself which is not not acceptable. I am marking his uploaded images from June 2010 but he just has too many images from flickr and MushroomObserver that he often marked himsekf. Now he has left Commons. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: Can you link an example of an image he uploaded and license-reviewed? Guanaco (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: I've removed his reviewer bit and undone all license reviews on files he uploaded, matching the regex "/\{\{LicenseReview\|[^\n\|]*\|Raeky\|[^\n\|]*\}\}/g". Can you also link one of his self-flickr reviews? Guanaco (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I've found that some were tagged {{Flickrreview}} when they were posted to a non-flickr site. Those, I will review myself. Guanaco (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

  • PS: I hope this DR can be closed soon as the image was not deleted from this author's flickr account unlike most of her other images uploaded by Raeky...but the license was changed to ARR. So, I launched a formal DR...for an image which is in use. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. All these DRs have been withdrawn and closed. The files have been given new reviews where possible, and the old reviews have been restored where the file was removed from Flickr or the license changed to a non-free option. I jumped the gun here, but everything's cleaned up. Guanaco (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Guanaco (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Typo

Hi, any Dutch speaking admin hanging around who might be willing to look into these?. Also please take a look at Wikipedia:Taalcafé. Thank you for your time. :) Lotje (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lotje,
Ik wil daar morgen best wel even naar kijken. Misschien dat Jcb ook wil helpen. Dat speltje is zeer tenenkrommend en helaas zijn er veel afbeeldingen met deze typo in de titel. Je ziet de namen het liefst weergegeven als: "speldje van "'(eventueel de ertussen) naam fabrikant'"? Wat betreft de schrijfwijze van Peijnenburger koek. Dat kan me weinig brommen.
@Other admins: I just stated that I will look into this and asked if Jcb might be willing to help because a lot of files need a rename because off a typo. Natuur12 (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Please see mediawiki message change request on MediaWiki_talk:Readonlywarning

Thank you. -- JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. Guanaco (talk) 08:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

special:contributions/David Stang

Hello, I have a complaint against user David Stang. It appears to be his site and he is uploading photos published on his website. The sources of his photos are "source: David Stang. First published at ZipcodeZoo.com". however, on further inspection, I see this paragraph:


ZipcodeZoo draws on the Catalogue of Life for its basic species list, Wikipedia and WIkispecies for some of its content, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility for its maps, Flickr and the Wikimedia Commons for many of its photos, YouTube for videos, the Taxonomicon for taxonomic information, and Xeno-canto for some of its sound recordings.


Honestly, I think commons require the original source, not the first upload and certainly not the person who uploads it. Artix Kreiger (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Artix Kreiger: Do you have any examples of files from elsewhere that he uploaded here?   — Jeff G. ツ 21:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

INeverCry (I think)

User:Quadraturin 100.35.73.190 17:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. I wasn't going to, but removing reports here is vandalism. Guanaco (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Now you tell me... Jen102699CoLo (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

INeverCry reappears

User:Susan Cranford + User:Jen102699CoLo

100.35.73.190 20:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Reappears? You really think he ever left? Is this my old friend Sro23, making sure he doesn't get blamed for tagging an obvious Russavia sock as one of mine again? Jen102699CoLo (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
100.35.73.190, you have a named account, log in rather than playing games hiding behind this Verizon address. --Fæ (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Help

Hi, I have moved/renamed a file, but something went wrong. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:From_the_Congo_to_the_Niger_and_the_Nile_-_an_account_of_The_German_Central_African_expedition_of_1910-1911_(1913)_(14760058006).jpg&diff=261980778&oldid=261980699 Sorry. Please help. Mutter Erde (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Deleted & restored. File should be back. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Flags

Hi, I am looking at flags of special:Contributions/Sz 024. All of them are flags. Ok I have to admit most of them seem fine but mostly they are copied from actual flags and the background colour is changed. I doubt the rest are accurate, like File:Bandera Episcopado de Colombia.png is a copy of This. A bunch of the rest of the flags seem like fakes or a self invention.

Regards, Artix Kreiger (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that this is well known Szm, "the flag vandal". I will take care of him. --jdx Re: 12:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Uploading photo's for the Wiki Loves Africa competition 2027

Good day,

I have just joined Wiki Commons.

How do I make sure that I upload photo's for the above mentioned(subject) and that it is not the widely available to everyone if I have not copyrighted the images?

Or should I copyright the images before I upload it onto Wiki Commons?

Please advise.

Kind regards,

Renier Kruger

  • All images on Wikimedia Commons must allow anyone to reuse them for any purpose (including commercial reuse such as publishing in a book, although reuse may be limited by personality rights of the subject of the photo) and to make derivative works. About the only copyright-related right you may reserve is to require attribution to yourself and/or mention of the license under which the work is available. If you want to reserve other rights, then please don't submit the images to Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 00:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Two users who may be one

I'm not sure how best to proceed on this, so I'm bringing this here. I'm dispersing Category:Theaters, and ran across File:EPSN0100.jpg. I contacted the uploader, User:Petru.toader hoping to find out exactly where the picture was taken, and after what performance, but since this seems to have been a "hit-and-run" account active only briefly I don't hold much hope. So I did a reverse image search with Google and discovered File:Imagine Spectacol- Teatrul National Bucuresti.jpg, a different crop of the same photo uploaded many years later by a different briefly active account, User:Mariatoa. Similarly for File:Adina Cezar.jpg and File:Imag. Adina Cezar.jpg. I have no particular reason to think either that these two accounts are the same person (in which case this would be fine) or not. I've contacted the latter account to ask whether they are both the same person. Both seem to have been active on the Romanian-language Wikipedia, so I've left messages in English (my native language) and Romanian (which I read and write decently, though by no means at a native level). Is there something else I should do here? - Jmabel ! talk 00:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  • File:EPSN0100.jpg
    File:EPSN0100.jpg
  • File:Imagine Spectacol- Teatrul National Bucuresti.jpg
    File:Imagine Spectacol- Teatrul National Bucuresti.jpg
  • File:Adina Cezar.jpg
    File:Adina Cezar.jpg
  • File:Imag. Adina Cezar.jpg
    File:Imag. Adina Cezar.jpg

How to mark TimedText for speedy deletion?

How does one mark TimedText pages for speedy deletion? {{SD}} doesn't seem to work on them. Please delete TimedText:Ahmed_Fakhro.ogg.fr.srt and TimedText:Miropcf_About_Universal_Subtitles.ogv.ar.srt as vandalism/nonsense. Train2104 (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done, although I do not know how to mark them speedy, as they are not interpreted by mediawiki. Maybe add speedy on their talk page and hope for the best? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

File:José Félix Ribas.jpg

Please delete the 2015-11-22 revision of this file, uploaded by User:Colaborado12 in violation of Commons:Overwriting existing files and Commons:Licensing as noted at Commons talk:Abuse filter#Report by 24.136.4.218. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done by Ymblanter. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

About My Recent Edits on Wikimedia Commons

Can you verify that my recent edits on this wiki are constructive, because ran a script (:Pywikibot/imagerecat.py) on PAWS which was supposed categorize images on local wiki but it started categorizing on Wiki Commons, if found nonconstructive please revert it and sorry for trouble. Anoop/ಅನೂಪ್ (Talk)(Edits) 04:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Too many changes to check, I just have reverted them. --jdx Re: 05:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Anoop/ಅನೂಪ್ (Talk)(Edits) 06:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate

Can one of you consider deleting this, File:9tPFo-jgB6-l51JJCkevigormanwwRrQ r.jpg ? Some of you will know what this tasteless thing is in reference to. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Deleted by HJ Mitchell.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Apologies, hadn't seen this. I deleted the image and blocked the uplaoder. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Deleted pictures from Uvaterv

Please see this paragraph on OTRS noticeboard. I need help for undelete many pictures but I don't know how many would be affected. Although that case is possible to there aren't any more deleted pictures from Uvater. Could somebody help me? Bencemac (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Anyone, please? Bencemac (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Also please refer that OTRS ticket number in any imagery from UVATERV; that one should fit to all of their imagery tranferred to Fortepan. --grin ✎ 07:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Exceptional issues with housekeeping of Data namespace files

Administrators may be interested in knowing that standard tools for creating deletion requests or marking copyright violations do not work for Data files. An example case is Commons:Deletion requests/Data talk:Kuala Lumpur Districts.map where a list of files has had to be raised as a deletion of a related talk page.

As Data files must be based on CC0 data, and so beyond the standard COM:L policy, this is an exceptional problem for Commons administrators in assessing copyright and maintaining the files. Vandalism, spamming or a backlog of files with copyright issues would be a difficult issue to assess or track when conventional tools are not available.

Refer to Phab:T178051 for associated technical discussion. --Fæ (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Users are unable to add the deletion templates, this is a problem. I also think we have to add this new .maps stuff to COM:L and COM:PS (if we have consensus? this has been discussed somewhere yet? i don't remember). --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Based on some analysis today of the detailed data, there has been blatant lying about how the maps listed in Commons:Deletion requests/Data talk:Kuala Lumpur Districts.map were created. I consider misusing data from our colleagues at Open Street Map, a serious breach of trust in our joint aims for open knowledge, as well as a breach of COM:L. Actions that should be considered deliberate vandalism and fall under COM:BP. A number of Wikivoyage users have dropped in to the Deletion Request and seem to be giving opinions not based on the hard evidence. I would welcome more comments from administrators that have no affiliation with Wikivoyage to contribute. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

This is canvassing, right?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Administrators have their own minds and the substance of what is raised here is a matter serious enough for an account to be blocked. Certainly if I'm guilty of promoting a critical deletion request which may result in a change of policy, that seems a trivial sin compared to the blatant canvassing on Wikivoyage which actually proves that the DR nomination was perfectly correct, see the DR for a link added for clarification. I have nothing to hide about my actions, and it would be super nice if the truth about copyright of these files were explained clearly rather than subject to obfuscation and misdirection. --Fæ (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
For a starter, it would be good if you could point us out to "blatant canvassing on Wikivoyage" or otherwise strike it out.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
"see the DR for a link added for clarification." --Fæ (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I do not think there is any like at DR indicating canvassing.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a done deal. After a lot of evidence and analysis, the uploader has confessed to lying about copyright. As for canvassing, it's not a crime in Commons terms, however the post at Wikivoyage Pub created by the uploader and opened with the same lie which resulted in some Wikivoyage regulars joining in the DR with keep opinions without understanding what the truth was. If you are interested in changing policy with regard to Data namespace, that's a separate issue from claiming files are CC0 when they are clearly not.

Keep in mind that many Commons and Wikivoyage contributors would like to retain a positive relationship with the OSM community. This case puts future collegiate projects at risk, so let's hope there is not a deeper pattern of false attribution at Wikivoyage. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Maintenance category

A maintenance category is being populated at Category:Data files with Open Street Map coordinates.

This shows that several different accounts have imported Open Street Map data and used it to create maps in the Commons Data namespace. The files are by default incorrectly declared as CC0. --Fæ (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Demande de licence libre de Stéphane Lemarchand Caricaturiste pour la totalité des photos importées par Armorino ou pour chacune des photos

Je suis Armorino. Je suis en train de créer un article sur brouillon sur Stéphane Lemarchand Caricaturiste. Il s'agit d'un artiste et j'ai donc eu besoin d'importer de nombreuses photos de son travail. Il a écrit une demande de licence libre à Wikimedia commons afin de m'autoriser à déposer toutes les photos de créations le concernant. J'ai maintenant un doute,car ni lui ni moi n'avons de réponse et je ne voudrais pas que les images disparaissent quand l'article sera en ligne. Fallait-il envoyer une demande de licence pour chacune des photos ? Merci de me répondre --Armorino (talk) 09:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Armorino--Armorino (talk) 09:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC) le 15 octobre 2017

  • When you say "Il a écrit une demande de licence libre à Wikimedia commons afin de m'autoriser à déposer toutes les photos de créations le concernant," if it was an email conforming to COM:OTRS / COM:OTRS/fr, and it was clear about what appropriate free license it grants, and it either specified specific images or said that it was covering images that you would upload on his behalf and that he authorized your selection of images, you should be fine. If it was something less than that, then there might be a problem. - Jmabel ! talk 15:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

This 3 images

Content from komnews.org has a CC BY NC SA license--look at the bottom--so I don't know why these images are on Wikicommons. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done I've deleted the three images from Kom News and notified the uploaders that we don't accept NC images, and they should use {{License review}}. Guanaco (talk) 09:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Another bit of vandalism

...or, at least, it's used for vandalism: File:MikeMagnante.png Drmies (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Deleted. Guanaco (talk) 06:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Suppressiojn de mon brouillon

Bonjour,

J'ai reçu deux notifications de l'administrateur Patrick Rogel au sujet deux 2 photos apparemment litigieuses sur les droits d'auteurs. Si j'ai fait une mauvaise manipulation, veuillez m'en excuser mais je ne souhaitais pas encore publier officiellement mon brouillon. Je comptais y travailler encore aujourd'hui mais je le trouve plus.

Un grand merci si vous pouviez m'aider à résoudre ce problème.

Merci

JZ pour la page de BERTRAND ROULET

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertrand Roulet (talk • contribs) 08:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC) (UTC)

Ping @Patrick Rogel: is it you? But your aren’t admin here in Commons … — Speravir – 00:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bertrand Roulet: Hi. I'm not admin at Wikipedia either. Bertrand Roulet's draft is at its location (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Bertrand_Roulet/Brouillon). Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Question

I am looking at File:Small branded swift.jpeg and it appears that the original file was different and several different files have overwritten the original. Should those photos been different files? Artix Kreiger (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Artix Kreiger: Yes, I count ten versions total.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Artix or Jeff, I would suggest COM:SPLIT (simply upcounting the filename?) and some information (COM:OVERWRITE) for both the uploader CHAITALIR11 and Bodhisattwa, the one who wrongly/unnecessarily has started a deletion request for this file. — Speravir – 23:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC) Made a mistake, hence next try to ping Jeff. — Speravir – 00:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Eehm, I meant Bodhisattwa should be pointed to COM:SPLIT. — Speravir – 00:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Speravir, thanks, I didn't know about COM:SPLIT. Please do the needful. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I have requested to split the file. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 12:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@Bodhisattwa and Speravir: Thank you,   — Jeff G. ツ 16:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Resolvedhere, I think. — Speravir – 23:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Spelling correction

Hi, anybody hanging around willing to take a loot into the spelling here Wikiwordenboek should be "wikiwoordenboek". Though, I prefer the word to be linked directly to the nl:wiktionary as I did here, imo in the meantime, the spelling should be correct. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Copied to Commons:Bots/Work requests, please follow up there. --Achim (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Achim55 Lotje (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

As i noticed, in Sep.19 was renamed many categories related with "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic". See as example Category:Churches in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic vs Category:Churches in the Republic of Artsakh. Etc. This has done by SteinsplitterBot per request on COM:CDC by User:Growupon (see diff). See also renaming Commons:Wiki Loves Earth 2014 in Armenia & Nagorno-Karabakh to Commons:Wiki Loves Earth 2014 in Armenia & Artsakh by these same user.

In my opinion, these renames (and related mass renaming of separate files, like File:Location Nagorno-Karabakh en.png vs File:Location Artsakh en.png) was very controversal. Reason for mass renaming was present as "The term "Nagorno Karabakh Republic" is no longer valid as the state officially changed its name to the Republic of Artsakh. The main page on Wikipedia was already moved.", but this is a not fully truth. This territory is the place of the long-standing conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. See en:Nagorno-Karabakh and en:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict for more details. The referendum on renaming took place on February 20, 2017. The new Constitution emphasizes that, despite the new name "Republic of Artsakh", the former "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" will remain in use. While they are identical, and the predominance of the new name will occur gradually. Even the site http://nkr.am uses the old name.

I propose revert all these renames and improve categorization. In my opinion, these renamings was done hastily, without recognition for the readers. --Kaganer (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

You asked the user on his talkpage regarding the move as per COM:DISPUTE? Likely a COM:CFD should be started. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson.jpg

If this is a 1965 portrait, it should be copyrighted still. I don't know when the artist died, however. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Per [2] 1910 - 1974. --Achim (talk) 09:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion. Guanaco (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

America FC (RJ) 1904-08.svg

I suppose, you reconsider the deletion of that file. You may also consider removing the administrator/s responsible for the deletion from their duties.. It is kind of for your personal hygiene, to avoid awkwardness and further embarrassment. (brandsoftheworld cannot theoretically claim any copyright on something which by definition is out of copyright, ie. here Brazil 70 years after publication). There is a difference between being just thick and being utterly clueless. You want to have people who have kind of an idea notwithstanding of being anally retentive. You may have noticed, I have given up quite a while ago anyway. Get rid of the sickest ones amongst the administratorship to retain some dignity for the rest. Cheers, OAlexander~commonswiki (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@OAlexander~commonswiki: You don't think there was any creativity in the work of brandsoftheworld or vflnet per Commons:Deletion requests/File:America FC (RJ) 1904-08.svg?   — Jeff G. ツ 23:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Umm...

Someone might want to take a look at this (NSFW) and see if something needs to be done or not. I'm... not... in a position to do a... "detailed review". GMGtalk 12:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Files deleted, user indeffed. There had been multiple DRs and multiple warnings. Guanaco (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy keep

Hello. Could you please close this deletion request ? There's no valid reason given. Thank you  ! JJ Georges (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Kept speedily. --Achim (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Helpful revdel script

In response to recent vandalism, you may find this script helpful: en:User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/massRevdel.js. Guanaco (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Guanaco: I don't know the script but it seems it's functionality is only a part of this somewhat more extensive script m:User:Hoo_man/smart_rollback.js!?
Btw.: why to heck there are on every revision rollback links, if only the first works?!? -- User: Perhelion 04:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@Perhelion: From what I can tell, smart rollback only does rollbacks. This adds links to revdel/oversight checked edits, up to 50 at a time. Not sure about the rollback links on every revision. Guanaco (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@Guanaco: oh* yes I mistake the en:User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js (I'm a newer admin and never needed such function).
What is the advantage to the MW Special:Nuke/XYZ? -- User: Perhelion 05:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Those functions are good for deleting entire pages with their history. But we sometimes have to change the visibility of certain revisions only, which nuke and VFC can't do. Guanaco (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh* I see now, thank you.[3] -- User: Perhelion 05:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, I copied to User:Geagea/Scripts/massRevdel.js and it's work perfect. -- Geagea (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Why this and why you not credit the creator? :-o -- User: Perhelion 08:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Fixed the credit issue. I'ts temporarily until commons adopt the tool. -- Geagea (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
And why do you need a copy on Commons? You can just use the version on en directly. --Didym (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Don't know how. -- Geagea (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Add the following line to your common.js: 

mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/massRevdel.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

Guanaco (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Working. thanks. -- Geagea (talk) 09:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

copyvio

some one can see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Raj_Kumar_Selvam . a+ --Chatsam (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

new versions needed to be reverted

new user 漫漫长冬 rewrite these files below:

he notes: "from cpc.people.com". But in people.com.cn I find copyright information in Chinese: "人 民 网 版 权 所 有 ，未 经 书 面 授 权 禁 止 使 用" (All rights reserved, prohibition of use without written authorization); and in English: "Copyright © 1997-2017 by www.people.com.cn. all rights reserved."

So it's copyright infringement and should be reverted.--112.5.236.226 11:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Has to be reverted anyway per Commons:Overwriting existing files. Sorry I'm in a hurry. --Achim (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done Yann (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Revision deletion request

The user Lmmnhn rewrite history. But that version's image is 300×400 size and bright color, unlike image on file's source. I don't know where user Lmmnhn got it. Therefore please remove the user Lmmnhn's version. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Garam and Lmmnhn: I've split the new image to File:Yukio Edano 201210 (2).jpg and tagged it no source. The new image will be deleted unless this information is given. I also upload-protected the old image for two weeks. Guanaco (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@Guanaco: Thanks for your quick response. --Garam (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@Guanaco: But see special:diff/264447448. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Lmmnhn: We need to know where the new version came from. Did you find it on a related website? Did you make it yourself, from the original, using photo editing software? Guanaco (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I think, that user doesn't mind us saying it about where it's from. (en:special:diff/807069367) Thanks. --Garam (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:America FC (RJ) 1904-08.svg

A few days ago, I suggested the speedy undeletion of above file. Could somebody kindly inform me why this has not been done? OAlexander~commonswiki (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

PS: Nobody can claim copyright to what is out of copyright! OAlexander~commonswiki (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps if you were polite, and you used COM:UDEL, you would have an answer. Guanaco (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I found the deletion highly impolite, and as incompetent to boot. To find convert and upload such a file costs me an hour of my lifetime, which here apparently is not valued at all. Incidentally, it is not me who benefits from an undeletion, it is the project, the end-users. You should have them in mind too. OAlexander~commonswiki (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
PS:I am also not quite sure how often I am expected to argue this - arguably clearcut - case. Here are plenty of people who sought and have power for the sake of improving "the project", supposedly. OAlexander~commonswiki (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Importing w:en:Module:EditAtWikidata

Hello Commons! Could someone (with the import permission) import the w:en:Module:EditAtWikidata? Thank you! --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. Guanaco (talk) 09:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Resist RationalWiki Child Abuse Now

I'm looking for an advice what to do with this account. It has been caught by Abuse Filter's rule #188 (code visible only for admins). --jdx Re: 16:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hm, maybe someone felt angry about this article? --Achim (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I've soft-blocked the account due to the username. The filtered uploads were apparently just out of scope rather than any kind of serious abuse. Guanaco (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding photos to articles

Hi: I joined Wikipedia mainly because I have a number of spider and insect photos that could be added to enhance existing articles on those species. What is the easiest way for me to add my photos to those articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarbaraThurlow (talk • contribs) 02:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@BarbaraThurlow: Have a look at Commons:First steps/Uploading files. Once you've uploaded your files, you can then insert them into the article. If you need have trouble with that step, we can help you once the images are uploaded. Guanaco (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


Thanks! Just got my first one added to an article. I appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarbaraThurlow (talk • contribs) 04:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Bad moving revert

I made a bad moving of category and files. I moved back the files into the right categories but the categories history it is not in the right place so please in respect of original users who created the categories move back

creating redirects. Thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 07:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Import

Hi. Per this discussion, could an admin please import all of the pages with titles containing "/Catalog of pictograms" linked from this enwiki page (as well as all the templates used on those pages and their documentation pages), replacing "Wikipedia:Route diagram template/Catalog of pictograms" in page titles with "BSicon/Catalogue" and replacing "Wikipedia:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung"/"WP:BSa" in template names with "Template:BSa"/"BSa"? Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Please provide a list with all pages in question, recursive import is not possible (it will overwrite tons of yet existing templates). --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: Pages:
✓ Done but in Commons: namespace and moving subpages is broken. Additionally Special:Import is producing tons of errors. Sigh. So we have to re-check everything by hand. sigh. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Transcluded sub-pages (might need some link fixes):
Other templates used:
Jc86035 (talk) 09:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: and w:en:Template:Efn, w:en:Template:Efn/doc and w:en:Template:Bsicon (no name changes). Jc86035 (talk) 10:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
After import (which likely takes ages because the tool is so low and i get tons of error's related to the mediawiki file backend), we need to move all pages by hand to the correct location :/ (every singe file because Special:Move seems partially broken as well). Sigh --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: You should probably use pywikibot for these (I don't think it contravenes the bot policy since a list of page titles has to be made before running it and so it probably counts as semi-automated). Jc86035 (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
.txt usable with movepages.py
[[Commons:Route diagram template/RP-anleitung2/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/RPa2/h]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung+LR]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa+LR]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungC]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaC]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/RP-anleitungGabel]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/RPaG]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungIA]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaIA]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungIA/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaIA/h]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungJ]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaJ]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungK]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaK]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungL]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaL]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungLR]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaLR]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungM]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaM]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungM/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaM/h]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungMv]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaMv]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungMv/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaMv/h]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/RP-anleitungNeu]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/RPaN]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungP]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaP]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungP/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaP/h]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungq]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaq]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungr]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSar]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungR]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaR]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungR/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaR/h]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/RP-anleitung]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/RPa]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/RP-anleitungS]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/RPaS]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungU]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaU]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungU/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaU/h]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungV]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaV]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungV/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaV/h]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungvLR]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSavLR]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungvLR/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSavLR/h]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa/h/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung1/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa1/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung1-2/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa1-2/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung4/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa4/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung4/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa4/h/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung4e/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa4e/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung4e/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa4e/h/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung4x/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa4x/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung4x/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa4x/h/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung4x2/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa4x2/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung4x2/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa4x2/h/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung4x2m/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa4x2m/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung4x2m/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa4x2m/h/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung5/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa5/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung5/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa5/h/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung5a/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa5a/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung5x2/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa5x2/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung5x2/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa5x2/h/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung6/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa6/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung6/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa6/h/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung6x/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa6x/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung6x/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa6x/h/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung6x2/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa6x2/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung6x2/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa6x2/h/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung7/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa7/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung7/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa7/h/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung7h/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa7h/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung7h/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa7h/h/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung7x/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa7x/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung7x/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa7x/h/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung8/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa8/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung8/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa8/h/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/RP-anleitung/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/RPa/h/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/RP-anleitung2/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/RPa2/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/RP-anleitung2/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/RPa2/h/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung+LR/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSa+LR/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungC/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaC/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/RP-anleitungGabel/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/RPaG/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungIA/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaIA/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungIA/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaIA/h/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungJ/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaJ/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungK/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaK/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungL/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaL/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungLR/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaLR/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungM/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaM/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungM/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaM/h/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungMv/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaMv/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungMv/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaMv/h/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/RP-anleitungNeu/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/RPaN/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungP/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaP/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungP/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaP/h/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungq/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaq/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungr/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSar/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungR/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaR/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungR/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaR/h/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/RP-anleitung/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/RPa/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/RP-anleitungS/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/RPaS/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungU/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaU/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungU/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaU/h/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungV/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaV/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungV/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSaV/h/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungvLR/doc]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSavLR/doc]]
[[Commons:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungvLR/header]]
[[Template:WP:RDT/BSavLR/h/doc]]
It did't used a bot because it required as new script, to perform the import (and re-import if fail) and then move it. Btw: Should be done soon :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: Sorry, I used the wrong regex in making the list of doc pages so these need to be done again.

(For the script I was referring to just doing the page moves.) Jc86035 (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: Missed a few more because of the usual delay in categorization:
Jc86035 (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Done. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

An archived case

Hi! I filed a case about a user, but was archived before someone investigate it. ——Chalk19 (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

FlickreviewR 2 malfunctioning; blocked; false copyvio tags

I've blocked the FlickreviewR 2 bot because it's now replacing old, good license reviews with fails, due to license change on flickr. We now have a mess to clean up. Many of the images tagged copyvio should not be deleted. For example, see File:01.05. 2014g. Douglas DC-3 (C) RA-2059G ex. N97H. Airfield Stupino. (14350171095).jpg. Guanaco (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems like the re-review was triggered by another bot editing the review tag. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Never mind, it's re-reviewing other files as well for no apparent reason. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I did not see the edits but I suspect it was not related to user:FlickreviewR 2 algorithms but to this edit which changed, among other things, output of the template from "reviewed-pass" to "pass", which resulted in images previously labeled as "pass" to get {{Flickrreview}} template. I fixed it about an hour latter, by renaming a sub-template, but I guess there were some mishaps in-between. --Jarekt (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Oops, I was reading the docs and did not realize the status names are prefixed with 'reviewed-'. I'll leave the unblock to Guanaco. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@Guanaco: The only files left in Category:Recent unfree Flickr images are legit, so the damage has been cleaned up. Please consider unblocking the bot.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
+1 --Jarekt (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Unblocked. Guanaco (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Could the bot be instructed to check the history of any page it comes across, and if it finds a previous instance in which it confirmed a proper license, it should revert to that revision? That might prevent this situation from recurring, and also I can imagine someone trying to vandalise a change-of-license image by readding the review template and hoping that someone would delete it without checking the history. Nyttend (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not familiar enough with the mwclient library to implement this in a short amount of time. The source code is available, so if anyone wants to try feel free to give me a diff. Note that the bot no longer stores results in databases, so checking against the bot's own database (which probably only existed before I forked the bot) won't work unless the database can be rebuilt in a reasonable amount of time, somehow. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Pictures by User:Neuköllner

Dear friends,

please delate my following own pictures!

Thank you very much! All the best! Neuköllner

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ambient,_Bild_2.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ambient,_Bild_2.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ambient,_Bild_2.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Experimentell,_Bild_2.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Experimentell,_Bild_1.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Herbstbl%C3%A4tter_auf_dem_Wasser.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Berlin,_Gro%C3%9Fer_Tiergarten.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuköllner (talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Neuköllner: Why?   — Jeff G. ツ 21:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, dear Jeff! I do not like theese pictures (my own works). Please could you delate them? Best wishes! Neuköllner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuköllner (talk • contribs) 22:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Berlin,_Gro%C3%9Fer_Tiergarten.jpg Author: Neuköllner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuköllner (talk • contribs) 22:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Herbstbl%C3%A4tter_auf_dem_Wasser.jpg Author: Neuköllner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuköllner (talk • contribs) 22:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, dear Jeff! I am very glad and wish you a wonderful day! All the best! Neuköllner / Lutz Thuns, Berlin, Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuköllner (talk • contribs) 22:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted the files, they have not been used anywhere and a usage within any Wikimedia project seemed to be unlikely. What I do not understand: Turelio did a similar mass deletion yesterday 23:06, and then you uploaded exactly the same file 23:45. Are you kidding us? --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Redirects

Can an admin please delete the following redirects. I have images to upload under that file name.

Thank you. Fry1989 eh? 18:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done —RP88 (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for closure regarding Flow

Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Proposal_to_uninstall_Flow has run for far more than 30 days, and there has been no new comments recently. Alsee (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete review

Please could an independent administrator review the deletions request, please? The deletion request page can be found here. It could be apparently a mistake, even though the file deletion request used haven't a valid real source and a derived automatic raster work. Thanks --The Photographer 20:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Block review

Could an independent administrator review the recent 24 hour block of Denniss (talk · contribs · logs · block log) please? The block notice on Denniss' user talk page is at diff. There was apparently no warning, even though the block log states warnings were given, and an analysis of the file reverts and file talk page discussion indicates that though it may have been appropriate to protect the file from edits, blocking the two accounts involved was unnecessary and inappropriate before any discussion or warnings were attempted by the blocking administrator. Considering Denniss' long standing in the community and as a past administrator, this seems especially shabby treatment.

@Denniss and Magog the Ogre: for information.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I've forked the image, as should have been done seven years ago. At this point, I  Support an unblock of both Denniss and XavierGreen, because this edit war is done. I'll also note that COM:OVERWRITE is a more established and more important policy than COM:Edit war. Guanaco (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support- per Magog. Wikicology (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Fair block. Blocking users for edit warring is basic wiki admin 101 stuff. Denniss should know better. The merits of each party's edits are irrelevant, and always have been since wikis were invented. COM:OVERWRITE is just a guideline and can be contentious. Guanaco, the quality of Commons' policy pages isn't a reflection on their importance. That we don't have much to say about edit warring reflects that it is relatively rare compared to WP, and that it is a fairly obvious no-no. I would not have a problem with Denniss being unblocked if they request so and, per policy, show they understand why they were blocked. The reply "What a bullshit. Thank you very much" seems to indicate they do not. -- Colin (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
    Edit warring, per se, is a nuisance, a weak alternative to discussion that clutters history pages. Overwriting files can create bigger problems: captions that don't match the image, projects uploading local copies because they can't trust ours to be stable, etc. With regard to images, I would say that COM:OVERWRITE is the prevailing policy. Guanaco (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Content policies are always secondary to behavioural policies wrt blocking. Edit warring is not just a nuisance... not doing it is fundamental to participating on a collaborative wiki. You would be surprised at the number of users, admins included, who totally disregard COM:OVERWRITE, particularly with images of artworks, leading to incorrect sourcing, drastic changes to appearance and quality, unwanted crops, etc, etc. It is just a guideline. This was a simple content edit war, and the solution is simple and basic admin. That it is even being discussed here is just politics game playing, trolling, etc. So, I'm off to do something more interesting, and suggest admins here brush up on basic wiki ettiquete. -- Colin (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussing 24-hour-block "reviews" at this venue, without any kind of formal unblock request on the blocked user's talkpage, sounds like setting a very bad precedent.    FDMS  4    15:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I mostly work at en.wiki cleaning up after undisclosed paid editors. I frequently come across users who've uploaded images here that are clear copyright violations e.g. due to flickrwashing or erroneously claiming that the images are their own work, e.g. Special:Contributions/Mikiwaky, Special:Contributions/NotLazyAnymore, Special:Contributions/MalikRob8102 and Special:Contributions/EbonyTurner from today. I find it pretty tedious tagging and explaining why they are copyvios and consequently don't always get round to tidying up. I was wondering whether there are any admins here who are willing to assist in nuking contribs if you agree that they are suspicious. (And obviously I know undisclosed paid editing is ok here, but not copyright vios). Can you please ping me if you reply. Smartse (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Smartse: I'll sort out the ones you've listed. Feel free to ping me at the relevant SPI pages on enwiki. Guanaco (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked and deleted. Flickr accounts are blacklisted. Guanaco (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@Guanaco: Thanks. It might just be easier to just drop you a note as it's often only a few accounts listed in an SPI. On a related note, some sockfarms use subject's real names as account names to upload and claim own work e.g. User:Ibrahim Al-Haidos & File:Ibrahim Al-Haidos.jpg, User:LeoRobin & File:Leorobin.jpg, User:Nbehnoud & File:Nima Behnoud.jpg. Do you know if there are any abuse filters here that could log these? There'd obviously be false positives but it could also be very helpful to lead us to affected articles at en.wiki. Smartse (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@Smartse and Magog the Ogre: Could this be easily incorporated into User:OgreBot/Notable uploads? There's only so much that can be done using regex and normalization functions. Guanaco (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@Guanaco: can someone provide me with the precise logic to use to tag the upload? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Aiming for fairly high sensitivity with reasonable specificity, a simple 5-character substring match: 

if editcount < threshold:
    for each 5-character substring of the normalized username:
        for each 5-character substring of the normalized filename:
            if username_substring = filename_substring:
                return true

return false

This would be simple to implement with an abuse filter, except I don't see a way to loop through substrings of a given length. Guanaco (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Revision deletion requests

User Lmmnhn rewrite history again. (See #1) And this user doesn't respond at all for copyright. (For this, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yukio Edano 201210 (2).jpg) Therefore, please remove the user Lmmnhn's version. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Lmmnhn: Can you please just upload your cropped versions as a separate file? We have the CropTool which will do all that work for you. Guanaco (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Global Ban for INeverCry

Please see meta:Requests for comment/Global ban of INeverCry 2.

Sorry, I meant to notify here too, and I just revisited in order to check. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, could an administrator import these pages from enwiki with no change in content? This is to allow {{Efn}} to work properly. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

bump / pinging Steinsplitter, since no one has responded. Jc86035 (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Please stop MifterBot or force Mifter to rewrite his bot

I use for years now bigChunkedUpload. Normal part of using this is that after uploading there is (almost) no information about the file, hence also no license information; and this has to be added in a second step. This has never been a problem until september this year when I got first time annoyed by the MifterBot. So I left a message on Mifter’s talk page (with an update, cf. Special:Diff/252441983/259172564) asking for some exception, but got no reaction at all. To cite myself:

Hello, at least for uploads taken with bigChunkedUpload (cf. User talk:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js) your bot should wait a longer time before getting active, let’s say half an hour. These uploads are tagged characteristically and likewise have a characteristic edit comment – and there is at first no other information than the upload comment. …

The file why I asked in september was tagged after 4 minutes, and I had added all information after 10 min; I would have been faster when there wouldn’t have been an edit conflict with the bot. Today I uploaded this cropped file, got disturbed again, this time already in a minute, but I had all information after 11 minutes added. What me annoys most is apart from the edit conflict that I each time get an unnecessary message on my talk page.
If you now think I cannot see an issue – the bot isn’t even reliable enough: In fact, I uploaded a second file where I got no notice by the bot! Or was I this time too fast for the bot? But between september and today I uploaded other files; the time span for adding all information was 4 to 7 minutes. (See new uploaded files I uploaded with the script.)

Side remark: Why do we need two bots for this task? There is also Zhuyifei‘s YiFeiBot which adds files missing a license to Category:Media without a license: needs history check. This bot runs once day (I think), so in most cases there is enough time to add missing licenses.

— Speravir – 01:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Speravir, I apologize for not noticing your message previously (I must have missed the notification myself). The bot runs every half hour (e.g. 18:00 UTC, 18:30 UTC, etc.) which is why if you update the file information quickly after an image is uploaded and the bot is between runs the bot will not notify you as when it checks the image it will see that it contains a license template (the delay is not related to the reliability of the bot rather to prevent undue stress on the servers.) In terms of uploads, I can offer you the same solution that I offered another user here which is to add a dummy template to your uploads that I can then whitelist so the bot will ignore everything you upload with that template (it can be something as simple as "User:Speravir/Placeholder" or the like). In general the goal of the bot is to prevent images without a license tag from slipping through as our policy requires that images be uploaded with one (from manual new upload patrol before my bot was reinstated I noticed a concerning amount of images without license being uploaded). I hope this helps and would be happy to address any other concerns or questions. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, sorry for the noise. Thank you, Mifter, for clarification about run time. I suggest moving back to your talk page in the existing thread, please copy the relevant parts of your answer. But in short: Such a template would not be a good solution, because everyone would see this forever in the file upload comment. More on your talk page after your copy. — Speravir – 00:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done here. — Speravir – 23:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Batch-delete

Please delete all the files in Category:Off-Road Racing in Sabzevar. I uploaded the low-res versions by mistake. I will upload the hi-res versions again using URL2Commons. Sorry for the trouble. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: ✓ Done --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Associate Engineer Salman khan yousafzai

Any action required? Artix Kreiger (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user and nominated both his uploads for deletion. Taivo (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Mass message request for WLM-US

Hi! I'm one of the Wiki Loves Monuments organizers for the US. Could an administrator send this message out to all of this year's WLM-US contributors? Let me know if there are any concerns.

Thank you! ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is it asserted I only joined in September of 2017? I WikiRedPen (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiRedPen is a Wikipedia Editing Name I have been using for many, many years.

Using that name, over the years I have made scores of contributions.

Why is it asserted I only joined in September of 2017? I WikiRedPen (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiRedPen (talk • contribs) 10:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia/Wikipedia consists of hundreds of projects. (e.g. English Wikipedia, French Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons). Your accounts works for all these projects. September 2017 is when you first entered Wikimedia Commons. For an overview of your global account, see here. Note that 2015 was the moment that the system merged your old separate accounts into a new global account. Jcb (talk) 10:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

File:NoblesandTheBarnes.jpg

Does this fit the threshold for logos? Artix Kreiger (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Below threshold of originality, but it's vandalism. Guanaco (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
@Guanaco: Forgive me if I'm missing something, but what made that vandalism? Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Nevermind, I see it now. Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done Account blocked: inappropriate username. Yann (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

FabrizioCamusso

Can someone look into some of the edits of this guy? I don't agree with the 3 deletion tags on 1 page. Artix Kreiger (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

New user who is trying to find out how to file a DR. ✓ Cleaned up. Jcb (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Speedy del request of unused personal image

In March 2016 a user uploaded a picture of him (with name and surname). In August, after the removal of information template, he added "db-author" template (sort of enwiki version of the template {{Speedy}}, not existing here). Today, he added this rename request (technically wrong), to remove his name and to add a placeholder name. Few minutes after he added, as anon, a speedy del request specifying i want my name off of here. Btw, I cleaned-up the requests and fixed. I think it's (clearly) a deletion request for privacy issues and, anyway, the (personal) picture is unused. I added a request here to help author to remove his picture as it seems he wishes. Thanks. --Dэя-Бøяg 23:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. --Dэя-Бøяg 01:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

These 3 images

Are these 3 images below free? I don't see any evidence of a free license.

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Tagged with "no permission". --Túrelio (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Uploads

Hi, anybody hanging around who has an idea of what these images could represent? Out of scope I would think. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I doubt they are own work.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Fæ and Jeff G., should something be done about it or just leave it as it is? Lotje (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done All files are marked as missing permission. Taivo (talk) 07:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

This category of images

Dear Admins,

Was an uploader allowed to mark his own images in 2016? Like the case below? i don't even know if the uploader was trusted.

I don't think this was permitted in 2016 but most of the category above consists of 1,100+ images uploaded and marked by this uploader, Edgars2007. Is that a problem? What would Lymantria or Yann say? I thought this was possible to review one's uploads if one was trusted only before 2011 or 2012 but not as late as 2016. Does Guanaco remember? If not, perhaps, they should be tagged with {{Panoramioreview}} . Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

This is one of the few images I know where the bot reviewed the uploader's image:

But what about the rest where he reviewed his own upload in 2016? --Leoboudv (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: The change to license review policy was implemented 21 February 2012. I'll use VFC to undo all these self-reviews by Edgars2007 after that date. Guanaco (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done. Guanaco (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank You Guanaco. Commons can't risk losing so many images due to this problem and the panoramio web site is scheduled to be permanently shut down or 'retired' sometime in November 2017. Luckily it is still open for now, so the images had to be reviewed very soon. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Cropped duplicte

I just added File:Great Western Railway dividend share certificate - December 1899 (cropped).jpg as a cropped version of File:Great Western Railway dividend share certificate - December 1899.jpg, using the Crop Tool, and inadvertently saved it as a new file, rather than overwriting the original. Can someone clean up please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Speedy keep

Hello,

could you please close this request as keep ? It's yet another frivolous request for deletion by someone who claims he is the subject and did not give his approval to the photo. (i.e., not a valid reason, since he is a public figure making a public appearance. Thanks) JJ Georges (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Taivo (talk) 08:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Mass message request for WLM-US (2)

This was archived; bringing it back since it hasn't been done yet. Thanks, ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I'm one of the Wiki Loves Monuments organizers for the US. Could an administrator send this message out to all of this year's WLM-US contributors? Let me know if there are any concerns.
Thank you! ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@Kevin Payravi: This is ✓ Done. Sorry for the delay. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: No problem, thank you! ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

чому не публiкують мої завантаження та доповнення?

Добрий день! Мною 23.09.2017 р. додана стрiчка з пам'ятником - Обелiском Слави (1989 р.) у с. Уховецьк (Ковельський р-н, Волинська обл.) - https://uk.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%92%D1%96%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%96%D1%8F:%D0%92%D1%96%D0%BA%D1%96_%D0%BB%D1%8E%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BC%27%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B8/%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BE%D0%BD&oldid=21142814 , а також 22-23.09.2017 р. завантажено бiльше 35 фотографiй - https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/PFLJK9FKB&ilshowall=1 . В мене питання, чи будуть мої роботи опублiкованi, та коли? З повагою, Нiна Павлiвна. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PFLJK9FKB (talk • contribs) 15:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@PFLJK9FKB: uk:Довідка:Файли   — Jeff G. ツ 01:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Bryan Charnley on Wikipedia. Removal of text after mistake with uploaded image.

Hi,

On 11 November at 8:46 the administrator JLAN (Justlettersandnumbers) removed all the text for Bryan Charnley on Wikipedia up to this date. Currently there is only a stub. The reason given was a copyright violation since I uploaded an image without permission. The image was "Bryan Charnley Self Portrait 13 June 1991". Although I do hold the copyright for this image I realise now that I needed to get permission first as I had done for the previous two images ("Clown in a Landscape" and "Jealousy")

I would like to apologise for my mistake and beg the administrator JLAN to restore the text. This is far more important than the image which you may take down anytime. The deleted text contains much scholarship by the main contributor Kirsten Tambling, (Kytamb) At this point in time it is crucial that this text is available.

I thank you, in advance, for your help.

Best wishes

James Charnley — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Charnley (talk • contribs) 21:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@James Charnley: To keep the images and restore the article text, we just need an email to be sent to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org), as was done for File:Clown In a Landscape.jpg. Guanaco (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadget-VisualFileChange.js

I experience problems with gadget today: it hangs on Determining target.. I tried to purge Commons pages and clear browser cache. I use Firefox 57 on Windows 7. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The same here. I have tried with Internet Exploder on Windows and with Firefox on Mac OS. Jcb (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Spam in some pages but not in the wikicode

Was looking for some information on a file when I start seeings spam in some pages. Seem some spammer inserted text in a template or in the display engine. Some pages show text for some Tanzanian safari. Its not in the wikicode of the pages themself so its not a normal vandal. I also checked in another browser on another computer to check if it was my computer that was running funky. Same problem.

Editing an affected page and showing its preview remove the unwanted text. Seem to be affecting wikicode as |} appears after the spam in some places and normal function like the Template:Collapse top in the page do not appear correctly.

Here are some of the affected pages I have found.

Also, if I search for the offending text, it return more pages with it.

Am I the only one who get this pesky spam? --Jackqc (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the page history for {{Collapse top}} you'll see that it was the target of a spam edit a day or two ago. Commons is currently experiencing a long lag with propagation of categories, updates to templates, etc., so it may be a while before the fix is propagated to pages still showing the version with the spam. If you wish, you can immediately fix any individual page by doing a purge or null edit to the page. —RP88 (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 Doing… Purging all affected pages. Guanaco (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Please fix typo in video description on Main page

The Video of the Day for 17 november has a typo in its description. In {{Motd/2017-11-17 (en)}} it should be {{w|Danube}} river, cf. the original video description and note that {{w|Dunabe}} leads to an inexistent page. — Speravir – 05:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks for the correction. —RP88 (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Modification of main page

After many days a reply is needed here. I am quite sure it is the same than for the European competition in 2015 and WLM every year. Even for a shorter amount of time than in those cases. Let me know.--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok we still have countries with no upload and we need that space like in 2015.What else do you want me to do? Let me know. I wrote to some of the jurors to inform them.--Alexmar983 (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This user's uploads

Is it safe to say that this user's uploads should all be tagged as no permission? It looks like he took them from a school site and they are derivative images. Perhaps he/she doesn't understand copyright. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Account blocked for a week, this is not the first time. Yann (talk) 11:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Revision deletion requests

Please remove the frist version image in page. It is my mistake. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Category:Waxham, North Carolina

Hi, I was wondering if someone could take a look at this category, because it seems there is a typo in the the naming. Imo it should be Category:Waxhaw, North Carolina. thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Added request for move at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/Category moves. Thuresson (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@Lotje: ✓ Done   — Jeff G. ツ 00:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Hebron Israel

User:Hebron Israel has an extremely insulting and provocative name: the city of Hebron is not in Israel, but in the occupied Palestinian territories. Is it possible to do something about this name/user? Huldra (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

the location and status is in dispute so it's not insulting. However, it implies a shared account. Artix Kreiger (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Wrong, it is not in dispute. Not even the Israeli government claims that Hebron is part of Israel. Only extreme rightwing, typically Kahane followers, claim that. ( And Meir Kahane was a designated terrorist, according to US law), Huldra (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I think the user name on itself is not something we are going to act upon. The uploads however are probably not own work and have unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked. Such a name is not OK. Would any one here agree with a user name such as "Nazi Germany"? This is quite similar. Regards, Yann (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Except that Nazi Germany was a real political entity. Hebron Israel isn't -- two separate entities. PumpkinSky talk 02:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Yann, how is "Hebron Israel" similar to Nazi Germany? Can you point out the similarities between them and let us know how "Hebron Isreal" is inappropriate? Regards. Wikicology (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
This seems to be an extreme political statement in a sensitive situation. You can argue whether they are a misguided innocent or a professional troll, but that's not the point. Ultimately if there is a majority here who think this is OK, why should I care? Yann (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Huldra, there is nothing like "Hebron Israel" anywhere. So, it is meaningless like most usernames here including mine. "User:Hebron is in Isreal" is not the same as "Hebron Israel". Has this account been used to attack Hebron or Israel? I really don't get the issue here. Could you please, educate me? Regards. Wikicology (talk) 09:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Wikicology Sure. The Israeli Kahanist settlers of Hebron commonly say that Hebron is in Israel (we have corrected them countless of times on the Hebron article on en.wp). Typically, take this picture user User:Hebron Israel uploaded: look at the title: "Tomb of Abner Ben Ner in Hebron Israel.jpg " Or a lot of the other pictures they uploaded are the same, from "Hebron, Israel". So yes: "Hebron Israel" means the same here as "User:Hebron is in Israel". Huldra (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

These 3 images

Would anyone like to mark these 3 images below. The first one is heavily used but I cannot see the license anywhere.

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done In fact those images are copyrighted + All rights reserved. The ones from the ministry that are explicitly released as free of use are published here. --Ruthven (msg) 13:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Elle Me Dit Mika.jpg

I am uncertain about what to do with the single cover of "Elle Me Dit" by Mika. The image may be unqualified for copyright in the US because (per COM:TOO#United States) the threshold standards are very high. However, the CD single was released in France, yet the record labels (Casablanca Records and Barclay Records or Universal Republic Records) belong to Universal Music Group, an American multinational company. France's threshold standards are very low, so I wonder whether COM:TOO#France applies. I thought about deletion request at first, but that's asking for deletion. I thought about asking at VP Copyright subpage, but that's asking for mere copyright. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

"MP3 uploader rights"

Hi, Not sure if this is in the right place ... but is "Mp3 uploader" an actual right ? .... I assumed anyone could upload MP3s here?,
This caught my eye so just wanted to ask,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

No, to prevent copyvios en masse, we had discussions on the Village pump (I believe) and limted it to approved users. (Personally, I want to rename this userright to "Extended uploader rights" - just in case of future lititations such as for 3d-files. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I suggested "Trusted uploaders", but George Ho wanted it to be more specific. See Commons:Village pump#Conclusions. Kaldari (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I figured that "Trusted" looks more one-sided and biased. I don't mind a broader right, but I wanted a more neutral name. I don't mind a narrower right either, and I didn't mind "MP3 uploader", which I thought is a better suggestion and more neutral than "Trusted". --George Ho (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Ahhh riiight, Bizarre as it may sound I didn't know if someone adding it at PERM was some sort of sneaky vandalism, Okie dokie thanks all for answering much appreciated. –Davey2010Talk 13:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Imho "Trusted uploaders" would be a better name, so we could use it in ABF/semi-automated tools as well. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay, if people have done discussing the principles, can I formally request that everyone in Fæ/Userlist, i.e. all active users with >10,000 edits, are given the right? The right should be no big deal and this will encourage more people to at least try it, without getting put off by having to work out what the request procedure is. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
P.S. I'm one of the few Commons contributors that actually has uploaded several hundred audio files, and had to convert the source from MP3 to Ogg format. Even with direct experience and a reason to participate, I found the discussion rambling and I stopped reading it. Please consider how to avoid complexity when there are long debates, this is supposed to be a friendly multi-lingual project. As for the outcome, for every policy decision there should be an attempt to measure any extra burden this introduces on newer users. If all policy changes in a year just add to the burden, then the project is literally making access and participation worse, and the project will die out faster in the long term. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
It would be enough to allow autopatrollers's uploading mp3 stuff. I am not sure why we need a own user group here. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
FWIW I agree with it perhaps being incorporated into COM:Patrol but it shouldn't be incorporated into COM:Autopatrol (Patrol has only been granted to 606 editors (admins and long-time experienced editors) whereas Autopatrol has been granted to 5,000 editors (all more or less newbies) - Seems kinda silly to give the right to those that aren't essentially veterinary editors and admins) but anyway I do agree that it doesn't need to be an own right. –Davey2010Talk 14:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)(Updated 22:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC))
@Kaldari: Are you convinced that the discussion reached a conclusion in the light that the policy side of implementation is still uncertain? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion requests by User:Daniella10171989

User:Daniella10171989 was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:INeverCry, but left a whole slew of baseless deletion requests mostly marked Out of scope - unused personal image. They really are baseless, I looked at just a few random ones, and most of them are of people that have EN Wikipedia articles, for example Commons:Deletion requests/File:Allisonmosshart.jpg: Allison Mosshart, Commons:Deletion requests/File:AllyCupcakeburnett2009TFPshoot.jpg: Ally Burnett, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alireza Zamani.jpg: Alireza Zamani, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ali 2.jpg: Ali Anouzla, ... This could be used as a list of images to be added to articles. All the deletion requests from User:Daniella10171989 should be closed out. She may never cry, but I'm close to now. !@#$ it, what happened to a fine Commons admin to make her do this? --GRuban (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

 Support nuking and rolling back any edits by INeverCry socks. He seems to have this delusion that his mass DRs and robotic categorizations are productive. No. They only inflate his edit count and his ego, and the large number of "unused personal image" DRs create a ton of extra work to investigate and close. We don't need it. Guanaco (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and nuke/reverted the latest sock, BrooklynRoger1958. Guanaco (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 Support It's possible that there could be something here that merits deletion, but only at the level that a stopped clock is right twice a day. Clearly it would be a waste of time to look through a bunch of mostly bogus requests by a banned user. We would literally do better to spend the time looking into random files. - Jmabel ! talk 00:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm willing to leave behind a DR that's gotten a delete vote, but all ignored requests and all requests with only "keep" votes I'm getting rid of. Nyttend (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
PS, I've left delete votes at three of them, and edited the files in question so that they won't be caught by mass rollback. Question — is there a way to nuke pages that have been edited by nobody else without touching pages that someone else has edited? [4] includes the pages on which I just added delete votes. I've been opening up the deletion nominations and deleting them, and opening the file nominations and reverting (the thing is that GRuban made productive edits to a bunch of them, so rollbacking won't get rid of all the deletion links), and that's how I happened on the three deletion-worthy files that accidentally made it in here. Basically, I'm not sure how to get rid of all the vandalism automatically without trashing some productive stuff. Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
No, I do not think this is possible, but when you mass-delete files you are prompted to select those which need to be deleted. At this point, if there are only a few with known names to be left, it can be relatively easily done.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
:-\ My fear is that I'll delete some nominations where someone's voted to delete; I don't want to open up all of the nominations if I can help it, but if that's the only way to avoid deleting a good-faith vote to delete, I'll open them all up. Nyttend (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, one of the INC-nominated and then reverted ones, was this rather clear copyvio File:AmyWinehouse001.jpg. I've tagged it again as no-perm. --Túrelio (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense; as I said to someone else, any good-faith support for deletion of an image, and I'll not touch it. I'm just hitting things that haven't gotten responses, or things that have only gotten support for keeping, aside from the occasional image (in this case, three "Alexis' Birthday Party" photos) that's a blatantly obvious candidate for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
PS, Túrelio, if you want me to revert any edits or undelete any deletions, please let me know, or leave a note at COM:REFUND and link this statement. Nyttend (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

These 2-3 images

The uploader Mbazri states here that these 2-3 images are on the given source but I cannot locate them. Perhaps my computer--with the Google Chrome browser, cannot see the 120 images on this link or views the images differently but I know I checked the source 2-3 times.

Can anyone find these images and/or pass them below? If not, do nothing.

Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Unapproved bot running way too fast

Special:Contributions/SchlurcherBot is doing the same task as User:KolbertBot, but never sought approval for it. It is editing at around 45 edits per minute, per the Commons bot policy non-urgent tasks should not be editing at more than 12 edits per minute. There's also an issue with inconsistent edit summaries and no "Bot:" prefix clearly indicating the edit was performed automatically. The operator has only made a few edits this month and year, none of which were to seek approval for this task. Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The page Commons:Bots is not policy, it just happens to be one of our oldest pages but has the status of a help page. There are a number of statements made that are incorrect based on current practice. Many tools make mass automated edits, and so long as they are not misleading there is no requirement to prefix the edit; this may well be a Wikipedia requirement. If "12 edits a minute" is required by policy, please provide a link to it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
"A bot carrying out non-urgent tasks should not edit more frequently than once every 5 seconds." 60/5 = 12 taken from Commons:Bots#Bot_speed. What specific statements are incorrect based on current practice? In all fairness, the COM:BOTS page should be changed to suggest using the maxlag parameter instead, but 45 EPM is excessively fast for a low-priority task. Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The quote is a rule of thumb, it's not policy. The rule of thumb may be a reason to raise a question with the operator, but if there is no separate evidence of disruption then it's not a rationale to block; which as this is being raised at AN, sysop action is presumably the intention. Any automation can be disruptive, but the relevant policy to take action is blocking policy. SchlurcherBot may well be acting disruptively, if you can make a block rationale with a case for urgency, then feel free to block the account.
WRT "What specific statements", this is one of them. If there was a community proposal to change policy on "bots", then I'd probably invest more time writing the issues down to help others to understand why more regulation or bureaucracy is undesirable. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Blocked The speed is not the main issue; it is not having prior approval. Yes, we may have exceptions (we don't have a 'formal criteria', it's case-by-case) for low-speed, manually assisted, urgent anti-vandalism, or bots running on their own userspace, but this task certainly do not qualify. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Could you please add a more detailed rationale in a block notice on the operator's talk page? I can imagine the case for disruption and why pre-approval was needed, despite a different account having approval to do exactly the same edits, but I would like to read it. Thanks Fæ (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Commons:Blocking_policy#Use: "Unauthorized [or non-responsive] bot accounts"; Commons:Bots#Permission_to_run_a_bot: "All bots running on Wikimedia Commons must have advance permission to do so", "if the bot's functionality has been changed to carry out some significant new task then a new request should be filed". --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Please read the discussion above, the bot help page is not policy. Please avoid relying on our rules of thumb, or best practice, if you are choosing to block accounts. Your quote from BP is fine, however the bot account actually is authorized, and extending the bot scope is something that could be done by discussion, not blocking. Please make the case for urgency and disruption that means the account must be blocked. If that cannot be done, the account should not be blocked. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
You consider that a "bot help page" - so there is no Commons bot policy? Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Some of the exceptions for this 'rules of thumb' has been listed. This task certainly do not qualify. Blocking is not an act of punishment, but prevention; and the task much be prevented from running until it is authorized. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Zhuyifei1999, honestly, I cannot point out which edits are causing any disruption, especially as the task itself was already approved, nor is this a case of flooding. Blocking the account is a way of getting the operator's attention (on a matter that was raised here just a couple of hours ago), but has the disbenefit of stopping any other good stuff they may be doing, it should be only used for emergencies, not anything that is "nice to have". --Fæ (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
AFAIK, tasks are approved on a bot-by-bot bases; therefore 'http->https' is approved only for User:KolbertBot not User:SchlurcherBot. Think of it this way: does approving FlickreviewR the task of license reviewing automatically make RandomUsersBot authorized to review licenses, with the exact same code of FlickreviewR? I'm sorry but no. Yes there may be exceptions, but as said, this is not the case. As for "good stuffs", they are free to rerun after approval, and we may get the benefits back; no need to be hasty on this. And no, blocking is not "a way of getting the operator's attention", but simply "a way of stopping the work until approval"; operator attention was already requested via pings/mentions. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Jon Kolbert, As an administrator, you know what policies exist and the importance of understanding the difference between policy, guidelines and help pages and can advise others. Automation on Commons happens in many ways, it is deliberately not over-regulated, instead relying on working collegiately. That community approach has worked just fine for many years. If you think this does not work, then by all means make a proposal in the normal way. --Fæ (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

As a courtesy, the operator should be notified of this discussion. @Schlurcher: --Fæ (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

That is why I linked their username in the first comment, which should ping them. Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
You may wish to change the rubric at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems about notification, if we are to officially start relying on pings (which did not exist when first written). --Fæ (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @Fæ: for your contribution to this page. Note that I am in the PST time zone and thus, responses might be delayed.
So far my understanding of the bot operating practice was, that Bot owners are allowed to incorporate certain approved and more trivial task to their portfolio to generate synergies. As an example, endless bots are not performing Internationalization tasks on top of their approved tasks (the task my bot is originally approved). I think this is beneficial for everyone. This said and as there was no general disagreement to the task, please see: Commons:Bots/Requests/SchlurcherBot2 for further reference. --Schlurcher (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Possibly problematic image and user name.

File:Same faen.jpg was brought to my attention as being potentially problematic in various ways. Firstly, the username might be considered inappropriate. Secondly, the file name can be considered a slur on Sami people ("Same" is Norwegian for Sami, "faen" is equivalent to "damn"). Thirdly, I'm not sure there is any informative value in this image. I don't usually patrol files, so uncertain on the correct procedure here. --Ranveig (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

In addition it seems to be a copyvio anyway. --Túrelio (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Image deleted and user blocked by Nyttend. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for review

Greetings: Would another admin take a look at the situation at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nikrouz kianouri? I realize we're not overdue on this one, but it's complex and I'd like consensus if possible. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done I looked into it (he mixed english with german) and closed the DR. I think some on the comments by the user can be considered as legal threads, he is linking to german court cases regarding reputation and porn (because of the pic on your userspage, where you explain the scope issue). --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the close! BTW, the pic on my user page is by an Austrian illustrator from 1922, who died two years later. It's PD-Pron for sure. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Difference between "photo's" and photos

Hello, anybody hanging around who would take a look at the spelling? As far as I know, the plural of photo is photos, photo's is something totally different. thank you for your time. :) Lotje (talk) 09:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

really? You're asking that? Photos is multiple photos. As for "photo's, let m e use in a sentence. The photo's resolution was very low to see clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2600:387:5:803:0:0:0:BE (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Man, you've placed en-3 in your Babel. Anyway, see en:English possessive or use Google and search for term "Saxon genitive". --jdx Re: 12:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I guess (once more...) I did not explain myself very clearly. There are some categories here: Category:Photo's by Ludovik57, Category:Photo's by JanDerk1968, Category:Photo's by Lisa Delanoue... which I would like to see changed. :) Lotje (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@Lotje: I've just wanted to direct you to User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, but I can see that Steinsplitter has already renamed on your behalf the three categories listed above. --jdx Re: 14:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Its an error. See en:Grocer's apostrophe.Geni (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jdx: , thank you, I noticed that Steinsplitter did it. My mistake, I should have made my request at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/Category moves, the Administrators' noticeboard is not the correct place. :) Lotje (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy (belated) Thanksgiving

I would just wish to steal a few bytes from Wikimedia and write this message. I hope everybody had a great day yesterday (at least those of you you live in the states and celebrated Thanksgiving). I just wanted to spread some wikilove amongst us admins, since we seem to be severely lacking some lately, given all interpersonal drama that has been going on here lately. Hope our disagreements can make us stronger and better. Yours, --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

 support. --Túrelio (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 Support   — Jeff G. ツ 21:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Contributions of User Vietnamesepresident

Please review uploaded images of this member, he used a very fuzzy quality and had no clearly use purpose. One of his image, [5] contained a bad word, lồn (Vietnamese) = fuck.  A l p h a m a  Talk 06:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

All uploads by User:Νικολάρας

uploaded a whole batch of files with a wide range of problems (watermarks, copyrighted logos and maps, false or missing descriptions, private photos, a duplicate, etc.). The vast majority of files has generic Internet filenames and obviously false "own work" claims. With the large number of diverse problems I don't want to create a separate nom for each and every single case, but these uploads should be summarily deleted. GermanJoe (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I deleted speedily a lot of scaled-down copies of other Commons files. Taivo (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, that is helpful. I nominated 4 more as blatant copyvios and 2 as out-of-scope travel photos. As always, I struggle with a few of the remaining logos. The "own work" claim is likely nonsense, but some of them may be PD-simple (dunno). GermanJoe (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done. Hedwig in Washington deleted last remaining uploads with reason "copyvios, no sources, some scope?" Taivo (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Contributions of Skulljujos

It seems most contributions from this user (Special:Contributions/Skulljujos) are copyvios. He's been uploading little cropped images of political figures in Ecuador (For example: File:Angelduarte.png). --Freddy eduardo (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Lisawray.gif

The permission for this image is it not OK for Commons since it says it applies only for WikiCommons? Does anyone know how to deal with the copyright owner here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I wouldn't interpret the permission-statement that way: It says
  • "Permission is hereby granted by Lisa Wray for the image file below to be licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License, on Wikimedia Commons."
The part "to be licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License" is crystalclear IMO. The "on Wikimedia Commons" might just have been added as it was uploaded to Commons, but it can hardly restrict the before mentioned license, IMO. --Túrelio (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I support Túrelio's interpretation.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
+1 --Leyo 21:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Armenisch-österreichische Zusammenarbeit

Ein User (User:Շաքէ Մանկասարեան disc page) hatte mehrere kleine Dateien ohne Metadaten oder wenn mit, dann war nur ein Hinweis auf Facebook enthalten, mögliche copyvios hochgeladen. Auf der Suche nach den Quellen der Fotos stieß ich auf diese Seite: Wikipedia: Armenisch-österreichische Zusammenarbeit. Oben auf der Seite lese ich zwischen den Wikimediasymbolen: „Nehmen Sie an der armenisch-österreichischen Zusammenarbeit vom 1. bis 30. November teil. Details und Artikelanforderungen hier.“ Daraufhin habe ich mich durch die Versionsgeschichte dieser Seite, durch die SUL-Accounts der Teilnehmer usw. hindurch geklickt, um einen deutschsprachigen Teilnehmer dieser armenisch-österreichische Zusammenarbeit zu finden. Habe ich nicht. Könnte mir bitte jemand einen Link senden, der mir mitteilt, ob das wirklich ein Wikimedia-Projekt ist. Danke, Hystrix (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Frag doch auch mal Emptyfear. Der hat dieses Portal auf der armenischen WP angelegt und hat laut Benutzerseite immerhin grundlegende Deutschkenntnisse.
Lilitik22 may also be helpful. We are wondering whether hy:Վիքիպեդիա:Հայ-ավստրիական համագործակցություն is an official Wikimedia project or if it was organised on a Wikipedia user level. De728631 (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Hystrix and De728631. Armenian-Austrian cooperation is a joint project by Wikimedia Armenia and Wikimedia Austria. The user:Շաքէ Մանկասարեան doesn't participate in the project (you can see the list of the participants here). I'm aware of the problem concerning this user and she has been explained many times online and offline that she should follow Wikimedia Commons policies when uploading photos. As there is nothing more we can do, please take measures according to the Commons policies. We are happy to help you if you have further questions. Thank you! --Lilitik22 (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@Lilitik22: Thank you for clarifying this, and good luck with your project. @Hystrix: ich übersetze das nochmal kurz für dich, bzw. fasse Lilitiks Antwort zusammen: Das Projekt ist tatsächlich eine Zusammenarbeit zwischen WMAT und Wikimedia Armenien. Besagte Nutzerin Շաքէ Մանկասարեան nimmt jedoch nicht offiziell daran teil und ist bereits mehrfach on-wiki und offline verwarnt worden, sich bei Commons an die Regeln zu halten. Da die armenischen Kollegen nicht viel mehr tun können, liegt der Ball nun bei uns, und wir dürfen dann gerne die notwendigen Maßnahmen hier vor Ort ergreifen. De728631 (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Jan-Wenzel-Schmidt-AfD.png

Anyone who knows the license for this AfD image is welcome to mark it. I don't know where the license or permission is kept. And this is the uploader's only image here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no free licence at the source page. Apart from that, the AfD as an organisation couldn't have been the copyright holder either as claimed by the uploader. According to German law, copyright always rests with the individual author(s) and can't be transferred. De728631 (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Joseph Goldstein Speech.jpg

I need someone to look into that image and block the hell of that editor, who turned a Nobel prize winner into a caricature. The real thing is here, File:Joseph Goldstein.jpg. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Deleted photo. Source listed is bogus too. He's got other contrib. Would like input on the block. PumpkinSky talk 03:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh I got some input for you, haha: "indef blocked for making racist pictures". Thanks PumpkinSky. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Uploading Picture with Owner Permission

I'm new to uploading images on Wikipedia and need some help. I have permission to use a Paramount Pictures-owned picture of Michael Bay to change his page picture (since the current picture is over 10 years old and has a fan's head in the shot). I have written approval in email form. I do not own the picture, and can't link it to a non-copyrighted page since the pages are created by Bay's website. How do I dispute the deletion on the image to keep the current image up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgf2081 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Please send the email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Our OTRS volunteers will review the permission and discuss the next steps with you. Guanaco (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

File:2011-06-30 Ciboria macrospora Velen 154831.jpg

Can someone check to see if this image still exists at the source or has been deleted please? It briefly appears at the source for a milisecond and then disappears. So, I don't know if it has been deleted. All other images from the source web site appear normally.

Secondly, if anyone can open the source video link below to confirm the license, that is much appreciated. My computer says there is a http error always. The uploader is reliable but the video link is not from youtube.

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: For the first image, the thumbnail image shows, and is licensed cc-by-sa 3.0; and the "Original Image" link http://images.mushroomobserver.org/orig/154831.jpg is "404 Not Found". For the second image, I can't see the source webpage either, and its main site falsely complains "Detectamos que tienes activado

el ahorro de datos móviles en tu dispositivo. Para disfrutar la experiencia de Claro video necesitas desactivarlo."   — Jeff G. ツ 02:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Dear Jeff, Would you pass or fail the first file since the thumbnail image shows the uploaded image BUT the "Original Image" link is dead? Maybe another Admin like Lymantria or Turelio knows the answer...and can act here? I don't know what to do since a 404 message says the original image has been deleted. I filed a DR on the second link since the video link for Erik Hayser is apparently not accessible. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I also found [6] which shows the thumbnail but links to the same 404. The uploader at the source site has many other CC BY images, and they all appear to have been 404'd. I think we should wait a few days and observe if anything changes there. Guanaco (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, the same problem has been here since at least late October 2017 when I first tried to access the video. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I'm just hoping that an experienced Admin will either pass or fail the Mushroom image which was the first file I mentioned. If its a 404 error and the original file is non-existent or now deleted--but the thumbnail exists--someone might know how to deal with this problematic image. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
    I've passed it based on this where the image is shown. It links to a description page with CC BY-SA 3.0. Guanaco (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • That's brilliant. Thank You, Guanaco and Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Upload Campaign:wikivacaciones2017

Hi! I know it is really late to ask for it, but can some administrator help me creating this upload campaign? In Colombia we run every year from December 1 to January 31 the contest Wikivacaciones (See Category:Wikivacaciones). I already created the templates for this year. I'll really appreciate every help setting up the campaign for the photo-contest. Thanks! Sahaquiel - Hast du eine Frage? 16:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done and i added you temporary to the Upload Wizard campaign editor group (until 1 February 2018), so you can edit the campaign if needed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!!! Sahaquiel - Hast du eine Frage? 21:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

delete and hide file

Hello I uploaded [7] incorrectly. Please delete and hide it because it exposes and leaks my secret information.

thanks, Seyyedalith (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Deleted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

free-photos.biz/photographs web site

Dear Admins or Reviewers,

Is free-photos.biz/photographs a trustworthy web site? I just ask this as I notice there are only 11 images from this site on Commons. I don't know the reason why it is so low unless it is an unreliable site.

There are at least 5 unmarked images from this site below that were uploaded in November 2017:

I thought the problem might be that it was a new site but some of the 11 images were uploaded in 2008 like this. In contrast, pexels.com has 100+ images. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Perhaps, I should have asked Magog the Ogre who has marked some pexels images what he/she thinks about free-photos.biz/photographs before marking any of their images...just to be safe. But I think Magog signed off. I'm starting to think they are indeed free but sometimes its better to be safe than sorry. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: which photos are you referring to? I can't comment without seeing them. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: I've never seen that file in my life. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Disallow - The bottom of the website states many images have come from Commons (and they have as I recognise some) but most worringly it also states and I quote "While the copyright and licensing information supplied for each photo is believed to be accurate, Free-Photos.biz does not provide any warranty regarding the copyright status or correctness of licensing terms. If you decide to reuse the images from Free-Photos.biz, you should verify the copyright status of each image just as you would when obtaining images from other sources."
Now it is NOT our responsibility to make sure licences are correct before transferring and uploading - Like Flickr, YouTube (CC), Vimeo (CC), Pixabay the responsibility lies with the website,
Also touching on that statement the last paragraph also states "you should verify the copyright status of each image just as you would when obtaining images from other sources" - Well no we shouldn't because that's the websites job (When you transfer images from Flickr or Pixabay you don't question the uploader about the licences first - you take their word for it and upload),
Now I may well be reading too much into this but this whole statement implies they take no responsibility for their inaccuracies and if a problem ever arises we could end up being in hot water ... so personally I'd say the images we have here should be deleted and their website should be added to the blacklist to avoid future uploads, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 04:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The reason you don't see many photos from free-photos.biz on Commons is that they get most of their photos from Commons. So if images are sourced to free-photos.biz you have to be careful that it wasn't uploaded from Commons before it was then deleted on Commons. Fortunately the photos on free-photos.biz from Commons are pretty reliably linked back to Commons, so you can check for circular license washing. The home page of the site says it is run by photographer Serhiy Lvivsky. All of the photos that appear in the site blog are credited to Serhiy Lvivsky, who discusses the photographic techniques he used, so I believe he is the photographer of these files. Serhiy Lvivsky is also credited as the author of the files listed above. These photos by Serhiy Lvivsky have a public domain release on free-photos.biz as well as in a watermark in the lower right corner, so I think they are acceptable on Commons. —RP88 (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Not all images on there are his, You also state "So if images are sourced to free-photos.biz you have to be careful that it wasn't uploaded from Commons before it was then deleted on Commons" - Unless you're proposing that each and every uploader physically searches for an image on here first then this isn't technically viable. –Davey2010Talk 15:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes...it looks like perhaps only the Serhiy Lvivsky images are OK. Some free-photos.biz images are indeed sourced to pixabay or Wikicommons. I gave the attribution to pixabay (for the pixabay image) and the correct author there. I will mark only the Serhiy Lvivsky images since he places a clear watermark in his images certifying that he releases this photo into the public domain. I will not dare touch any other images. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
"Yes...it looks like perhaps only the Serhiy Lvivsky images are OK." - We know that but the rest of the world doesn't,
"I will not dare touch any other images. Best," - Exactly again we won't but millions of other uploaders will,
Without sounding disrespectful this website is going to be more trouble than it's worth. –Davey2010Talk 15:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • FWIW I will add if the website owner perhaps divided Commons images from photographers images and took responsibility for the licences then I wouldn't mind the website being used but as it stands atleast to me it's more trouble than what its worth - Maybe they should look at uploading on Flickr or similar. –Davey2010Talk 15:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree. The Lvivsky images are a bit different since he places a clear watermark declaring his intent--that the images are PD. As for the other images, I notice they were sometimes sourced to pixabay but the wrong author on freephotos was credited instead. So, its best not to mark them at all as you state. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Polamat.jpg

Is this image safe to mark or should it be tagged as no permission? Somehow it got posted on a the author's blog site and the author supposedly licensed it as CC BY SA. Its a 1978 image but if the author is the owner of the blog site, then its safe top mark. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: There's a DR started about this, because the license is missing a version number. It might be good to discuss this at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Polamat.jpg. Guanaco (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of page/photo

This photo is of me and it is not correct info. Can the page and photos please be removed completely? Thank you.

File:US_Navy_101112-N-8546L-598_Lt._Sarah_Terse,_an_explosive_ordnance_disposal_officer_from_Swedesboro,_N.J.,_assesses_a_Uruguayan_explosive_ordnance_d.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 107.77.202.109 (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The photo and description appear to match what's on the Navy website. Can you clarify what's wrong with it? Guanaco (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for deletion

Hi,

can you delete files from File:Slaný (001).jpg to File:Slaný (531).jpg. They are duplicates of other ones with coords.--Juandev (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for file

Can a admin please send me the file https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Conqrad.png&action=edit&redlink=1 ? I can give Mailadress via PM. Thank you very much, I would be happy to have this file back again, Conny (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC).

@Conny: I've temporarily undeleted it. Please post here once you have the file, and we'll delete it again. Guanaco (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Did, thank you very much. Conny (talk) 08:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC).

Sock of Starship9000

Spider-Man on tires (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . 13.126.222.242 18:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for deletion 2

I am sorry, I have one more RFD. Could you delete the range File:Buštěhrad (001).jpg to File:Buštěhrad (127).jpg, please. I had no idea, how to upload it with coords via VU.--Juandev (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. Guanaco (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk page spam

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

Could an admin please review the contributions of the following user, they have created tens of file talk pages with medical jargon/nonsense text. The images themselves are likely to be suspect as well, considering that one I clicked on contained Facebook metadata. I can't look at anymore as their visual content is making me sick (medical imagery). Cheers, seb26 (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Renames of Pompeii images

Hey,

I'm going through Category:Media renaming requests needing target and came across a lot of images named "P(number) Pompeji (number).jpg". Using lots of tabs and HotCat, I've put these all in Category:Holding category for Pompeii renames. I was going to add a target to each of them at my own discretion per the file naming guidelines but for a mass change I thought it would be best to gain consensus and probably the help of someone who has AWB access! All of these images are attributed to Flickr user Sarahhoa and were transferred and tagged by Davey2010.

Thanks,

StraussInTheHouse (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I unfortunately don't have AWB because knowing me I would probably cause WW4, Anyones help on these would be greatly appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I understand the part about the names being non-descriptive, but why rename Pompeji to Pompeii? It's not a typo; see de:Pompeji for a major language that uses this spelling. Nyttend (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Nyttend - Not sure if you're replying to me but if you are - The requested moves are "P number" needs to be removed and the name needs to be more specific" - I never asked these to be moved from Pompeji to Pompeii, If these are being moved to the other name then this shouldn't be happening. If you wasn't replying to me then just ignore this, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I guess I should qualify my statement before. These indeed are being renamed to "Pompeii", e.g. File:Doorway of unidentified building in Pompeii, 2016.jpg, File:Mural of Venus in Pompeii, 2016.jpg, and File:Path around unidentified building in Pompeii, 2016.jpg. But since they're being given full-scale English names, I guess it would be silly to retain a single German word, as it would definitely be a mistake in the middle of an otherwise English caption. Nyttend (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Certainly, anyone who knows enough about the subject matter and speaks German is welcome to submit rename requests which use German names and retain the German spelling, and any filemover or admin can fulfill such requests.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Any Russian Admins or reviewers to review 2 of these 3 images

2 of these 3 images were uploaded by Russian uploaders, I think. The first image can be reviewed by anyone--if only the source or license could be found. Can anyone inspect them please?

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dapper Day Fall 2015 all women.jpg

Could someone close this DR?--Ianmacm (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. I closed it. Taivo (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

copyvio

some one can see [8] beacaus they are copyvio. bye --Chatsam (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Chatsam: What proof do you have?   — Jeff G. ツ 20:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
because the user are Jacquelinekato and they are "© pascal kirchmair". --Chatsam (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
@Chatsam: They claim to be the same person. Why do you doubt that claim?   — Jeff G. ツ 21:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done OTRS permission processed. Guanaco (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Nelze načíst soubor

Dobrý den,

nelze mi načíst soubor. Místo toho vyskakuje výhružná hláška, že mi bude znemožněno editovat označená jako "WP0 abuse – temporary disabled file types". Přitom jsem se koukal, že maximální velikost souboru pro nahrání je 4G. Mohu teda ty soubory nahrát, nebo ne?--Al.trcka (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Unable to load file

Hello,

I can not load the file. Instead, it raises a threatening message that I will not be able to edit the "WP0 abuse - temporary disabled file types". At the same time, I was wondering that the maximum upload file size is 4G. Can I upload these files or not?
translator: Google Translate
 Comment Attempted uploads of ovg files by this user have been blocked.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

So, when it will be allowed it again, please?--Al.trcka (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion time

Hi, could any admin kindly delete the image I wrongly uploaded by mistake? The speedy deletion for that image has been requested for several hours and it is still there. Gratitude. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 03:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

That would be File:2017-12-11-04-25 Polluted area distribution across Kaohsiung City.png, uploaded less than four hours ago.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's it! :D --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 04:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Imotska gaovica (Phoxinellus adspersus).jpg

Please feel free to mark this image--if anyone can determine what the license of this image is? Its not very clear. The source says the file is PD while at the bottom it says all contributions or content to this wikia is CC BY SA but the image was uploaded on a CC BY 3.0 license. This image is used on 6 wikipedia sites at least. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Imotska gaovica (Phoxinellus adspersus).jpg. Guanaco (talk) 08:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Possibly unfree YouTube file & possibly unreliable reviewer

File:Liviu Tipurită.jpg, which I certainly hope we can keep, cites as its source a YouTube page that does not currently appear to indicate the free license claimed. It was reviewed 7 February 2017 confirming the license, but the review was by User:INeverCry, who I gather went on some sort of rampage not long after that, and I am not sure if this review can be trusted. I'm here on the admin page because I'm looking for guidance on how best to handle this, rather than trying to pursue some one course of action.

  • Am I missing something on the YouTube site? Is the claimed license currently there?
  • If not, can we rely on a past determination by User:INeverCry? Were things like this among the problems with INC's work, or can I consider this as reliable as I would a similar assertion by another admin or reviewer?

- Jmabel ! talk 06:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I can see the source video without a problem and I confirm that it is licenced under CC-BY-3.0. --jdx Re: 06:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Me too! — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 08:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 17:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Images to License Review from this website

There are 97 images to mark on Wikicommons on the above website. I have marked only the top 18-20 images and am marking some images at the very bottom. If someone has time to mark the rest of the images, please feel free to do so. Sometimes, an uploader places a CC BY 3.0 license when the license should be Attribution. Unfortunately the design of this fishbase.se site allows CC BY NC and ARR images, so the uploaded images should be reviewed. I have to sign out in 20 minutes as it is late at night here in Canada. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for file rename

Hi, Someone please delete this redirect (File:Wiki Loves Villages.svg) and rename this file (File:Wiki Love Villages.svg) to again File:Wiki Loves Villages.svg as "Wiki Loves Villages" is correct name. TY :) --Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 13:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for deletion

Delete File:Nosslrac1.jpg. It's a personal image, that I don't want to use. /Nosslrac (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. You can also tag images with {{speedy|your reason}} if they qualify. Guanaco (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-lad.png

This logo is not currently in use (in any format) at ladwiki. The logo currently in use there is File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-lad new.svg, which (to the best of my knowledge) does not have a .png version. There are some pages here and on Meta that automatically look for [[File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-[code].png]] that are therefore showing the wrong logo. I wonder if this file can be moved to [[File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-lad (deprecated).png]] (parallel to File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-lad (deprecated).svg), followed by one of the following:

  • Place a redirect to the .svg file actually in use at [[File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-lad.png]], or
  • Someone can derive a .png file from the .svg file and park it at that location, or
  • Someone can derive a .png file, place it at [[File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-lad new.png]], and then leave a redirect at [[File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-lad.png]].

Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) (sysop at ladwiki) 22:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Shizuoka Prefectural Central Library cropped GSI CCB20094-C20-43 20090501.jpg & File:GSI CCB20094-C20-43 20090501.jpg

If anyone is comfortable to mark these images, feel free to do so. Its just that when I click on the source, I don't see the uploaded image. Goodnight from Canada. --Leoboudv (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

rename request

hello;

please rename my recent request. for Persian wikipedia's 14th birthday celebration

thanks, Seyyedalith (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

pictures from he.wp

There are some nice pictures in https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/מוקייבלה

...which I believe could fit in

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Muqeible

...alas, I am not sure about the licence. Does anyone know? Huldra (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for file rename back - File : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Soldat_Francais,_N%C3%AEmes_vers_1876.jpg

I am the author of the picture concerned. From 1874 to 1877, Constantin Cheynet de Beaupré was a lieutenant at the 38e régiment d'Artillerie montée in Nîmes (France). I own several authentic pictures of this person, at several ages of his live. Two of them are similar to the one concerned, on various papers and supports.

From several weeks on, user Kuplop as been trying to make this picture deleted from Wikimedia Commons, which was refused. See discussion page [[9]]. Then, he tried to obtain it being renamed in "Cheynet", which didn't succeed either. Finally, he wrote that the name of this person wasn't surely known, which is wrong. By doing this, he deceived Wiki13 who renamed the picture in the way suggested by Kuplop (File:Soldat Francais, Nîmes vers 1876.jpg). Wiki13 is sorry for that [[10]]. He wrote me I should ask you to rename the picture back, for he is not empowered to do it himself. On this page [[11]], Kuplop nominates this person "Constantin Cheynet" : so he knows perfectly who he is. When he writes : "How do you know that the person on the picture is name "Constantin Cheynet de Beaupré"? What is your source?" [[12]], he is not frank. On the same page, above, he writes : "En outre du fait que Constantin Cheynet ne s'est jamais appelé Cheynet de Beaupré, ce fichier n'a rien à faire sur ce site". He knows exactly the name of this person. For him, this last argument is simply a way to get around the decision of Wikimedia Commons to keep this picture, despite the fact that he wanted it to be deleted.

Being the author of this work, I certify that this picture represents Constantin Cheynet de Beaupré (1845-1921).

Would you please be so kind as to renaming this picture back to its original name : File:Constantin, Cheynet de Beaupré, Nîmes vers 1876.jpg ?

Thank you in advance.

Cheers,

Κοινὴ διάλεκτος (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Κοινὴ διάλεκτος

File:Ajit V. Pai headshot.jpg

Can someone revert vandalism to the description page for this image that is currently on English main page, thanks. Stephen (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Emil Fuchs

Hi, someone hanging around to look into this category? The link leads to the Emil Fuchs page. It should link to Emil Fuchs (Künstler). Should it be taken into consideration to change it here to Category:Emil Fuchs (artist)? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. I fixed the de: link. I think, that no other action is needed at moment. Commons is repository of images and obviously artist Emil Fuchs has more images than theologian Emil Fuchs. So for Commons, Emil Fuchs is mostly artist. But if you do not agree, then everybody is free to create a category renaming/moving request. Taivo (talk) 09:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Flickr-public domain mark

Hi everyone, @Jcb: and I disagree on how to interprete Template:Flickr-public domain mark. For me, it means that we need to add manual reasons on why the files are public domain. So, it can be either because of old age, such as Template:PD-old-100, or because of the will of the copyright holder, such as Template:PD-Author. For him, self-published files on Flickr under a PD mark are not freely-licenced enough, since they lack a sound legal definition (contrary to CC-by and such). Is there an official policy somewhere ? Léna (talk) 09:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion at Commons_talk:Flickr_files#The_PDM_Mark exists, but it is not evidence of a consensus. In my view, neither is it evidence that the upload should be deleted. The key thing is that someone needs to engage their brain and look at the image, or series of similar images, to make a determination if the effective claim of public domain status is credible. --Fæ (talk) 10:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
In this case there is no explanation at source why this would be PD. An explicit Public Domain donation would be needed in this case, which the PDM is not. Léna, I also want to note that you cannot restore your own uploads ever without agreement with the deleting admin. In this case you undeleted your own uploads without even notifying me. Please make sure you never do that again. We call that wheelwarring. If you cannot come to an agreement with the deleting admin, we have COM:UDR. Jcb (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Could you please turn down the paternalism ? You deleted the files without any explanation, I thought it was because I forgot to use Template:PD-Author, so I restored the files with that I believed is the right amount of information needed, and than you deleted them again, only giving an explanation afterwards. I could totally mirror you and say "if you cannot come to an agreement with the restoring admin, we COM:DR" ; I just think it is more productive and interesting to accept that we have conflicting views on Flickr-PD and reach to the admin community to find a consensus than to play blaming games. Léna (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
You cannot use Template:PD-Author if there is no evidence for such a situation. The reason that you didn't receive a notification of the 'no license' tagging, is because you left the files yourself with that tagging. You would have seen this if you would have checked your uploads. PDM at Flickr means deletion, unless a valid license can be established, which is not the case here. Making up yourself a PD-Author statement (which is absent at source) is really not what admins are supposed to do. And regarding your undeletions, I just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that you cannot do that, nothing more, nothing less. I am not angry, just don't do it again. Jcb (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
If Jcb refuses to undelete, there is a good case to put on record at UDR. The Flickrstream is explicitly (translation) "The official photo gallery of the Chancellery of the Prime Minister" and going to the official website, copyright is granted with "Users using official materials published on www.premier.gov.pl do not require the consent of the Chancellery of the Prime Minister (Chancellery of the Prime Minister)." --Fæ (talk) 11:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Fæ is right here. PDM is often misunderstood. Perhaps a Polish speaker could explain to the Chancellery of the Prime Minister that they would be better off using CC0 or uploading here as PD first.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
@Polimerek: As the president of Wikimedia Polska could you contact KPRM and explain them the issue? Last January I created a thread at Polish "village pump" but it didn't attract much attention. --jdx Re: 12:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

In the past some arguments have been made that an amateur photographer ignorantly using PDM for their own photos could be believed in good faith to have donated their images to PD, even though the PDM explicitly says it is not suitable for that purpose. Some disagree arguing that the PDM has no legal power and so we require other evidence that the photo has a free licence by the copyright owner. That an amateur has picked it for their own photos, indicates they cannot actually be considered a "reliable source". The best solution is to contact them and ask them to use CC0.

For professional photographs, the argument for ignorance is less sound. But it is quite possible that the PDM is correctly used here: that legally these images really have already been placed into public domain. It should then be possible to find some act of parliament or public declaration that photos created by employees of the Prime Minister's Office are automatically public domain (perhaps after a certain date). Perhaps it goes further to all that governments's photos? If we can find this out then that would be sufficient evidence. There is no need for KPRM to use CC0 if they have already made a legal announcement elsewhere. The only need for CC0 is if that Flickrstream is the only evidence that these photos are freely available. The statement quoted above ("Users using official materials published on www.premier.gov.pl do not require the consent of the Chancellery of the Prime Minister (Chancellery of the Prime Minister).") is not a free licence nor a declaration making the material public domain. Even if it was, it would not be much help unless one can trace Flickr images to their equivalent on the gov.pl site. -- Colin (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Public domain in Vietnam

Hi I am looking at File:Hanoi 1940. View from the Presidential Palace to gate and parkway.jpg and it has a US tag on it. I was wondering when is public domain in Vietnam? Artix Kreiger (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

75 years after first publication, as long as it is less than 100 years after creation, according to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Vietnam. You can use Template:PD-Vietnam. Léna (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
ok thank you. Artix Kreiger (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Media of the day's english caption

Hello, there is a typo in the external links of the Media of the day's english caption. In the template Template:Motd/2017-12-16 (en) (this page is protected due to the fact that it is today linked to the main page which is a protected page), the templates "wf" used should be replaced by a "w". And the expression "tanbo art" should be made as an external link. Thank you. --ContributorQ (talk) 07:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@ContributorQ: I referred to this at Template talk:Motd/2017-12-16 (en)#Errors.   — Jeff G. ツ 08:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done --jdx Re: 09:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thank you very much. --ContributorQ (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Assess the consensus

Would an admin assess the consensus in this DR, please? Regards. --Mhhossein talk 13:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. I closed the request as deleted. Taivo (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 Thank you. --Mhhossein talk 11:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Uploads by Chesterboy

This user uploaded photos of the artist w:en:Fei Xiang as if it were his own works. However, I believe that they are non-free and should be deleted. I would take the uploads to deletion requests. However, considering how slow and less responsive the "Deletion requests" process is, I would discuss it here instead. George Ho (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I reported some of his works. The rest should be investigated, too. --Mhhossein talk 11:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done. All his contributions are now deleted. Taivo (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

This DR

This image comes from picture-newsletter.com and I don't know if this image should be passed or not. If it should be kept or deleted, please comment in the DR. There are Seven other images from this website on Commons, none reviewed, but I don't know if the website is reliable. If it is, I will withdraw this DR. The uploader resisted a no permission tag on this image earlier. But there are seven other images from this site here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. All deleted as copyright violations. Taivo (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Graphic that I Cannot Find

A few years ago I created a scalable vector graphic (.svg) version of this yangqin image. I have since misplaced any copies of the graphic. I thought that I had uploaded it to the commons. But I cannot find it. I wonder if perhaps it has been deleted. But I don't remember the URL & I am really not 100% sure that I did actually upload it. I am hoping that an administrator can tell me so. If I did, & it's possible to retrieve it, could I please get a copy of it?

This is a rasterized version of the graphic that I had made: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/AntumDeluge/myabcs/unstable/data/image/music/yangqin.png

I can probably use it to create a new one if the original cannot be found.

Thank you,
- Jordan

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Antumdeluge (talk • contribs) 03:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Antumdeluge: None of your contributions to Wikicommons have been deleted. Perhaps you uploaded the file to Wikipedia? Thuresson (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Antumdeluge, as an English Wikipedia administrator, I can check your deleted contributions over there. You didn't upload it there either: you've only made one file edit that's still active (creating en:File:Enchanted Journey Cover.jpg). Moreover, you have only two deleted edits: creating en:Enchanted journey and uploading en:File:Explorer++ File Manager.png. So no SVGs. [13] tells me that you have no active edits on any wikis except Commons and the English Wikipedia, so unless you uploaded it to another wiki where all of your edits have since been deleted, I have to conclude that you never uploaded it to any Wikimedia Foundation wikis. Nyttend (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Madison Beer in 2014.jpg

Is the permission for this image OK? Its a bit confusing as the image is on twitter but the permission statement is posted on flickr and I don't know who posted the permission license. If it is correct, feel free to pass it. The lady who gave the permission has a different photograph than the twitter source I am not on twitter. If not, this may need COM:OTRS Does Jcb or Rudolphous know? Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: I have requested confirmation.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

User:ZoeS101978

Obviously 70.21.190.158 03:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't hide behind an IP like you ya little bitch. ZoeS101978 (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocking activities

Hi,

could you stop to block my activites on Commons? Or am I doing something wrong?--Petr Noha (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Petr Noha: you’re not blocked; an unregistered user put that unblock request on your Talk page. Unless you’re indeed a sockpuppet of INeverCry, as that IP seemingly wants administrators to infer, you have nothing to worry about.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I dont understand. I cannot create a category, there is a notification, that I am blocked.--Petr Noha (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Petr Noha: if you were blocked you would not be able to post here (or anywhere else on the site except your User Talk page). And I notice you just created Unidentified type of glass, so whatever problem you’re having isn’t affecting all category creations. I suggest you ask at the Help Desk with a detailed description of what you tried to do and the exact wording of the notification message you received.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:France photographs taken on 2017-12-18, ...

Hello! I have a question:

Is it allowed to create, use and fill the following ond tausends of ather categories like this?
I was blocked with the reason "SPAM" (definitin of SPAM: unsolicited or undesired electronic messages) because an administrator did not want to see these changes from me on his Watchlist. Categories can be found by location, time and topic and further edited to make sense of them. Therefore, the general advantage for all members (easy findability and processing) should be more important than the personal needs of an administrator (visual appearance of an observer's own watch list). These and similar categories are currently being created from many users. There exists over 10.000 of them (look at Category:Photographs by date by country). If they are not allowed then they should be deleted.
There was a discussion here. I was then also locked on my own discussion page to muzzle me. I've been in Wikiprojekts since the year 2006, but i have not experienced any arbitrary like that. --GT1976 (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
@GT1976: Your categorizations were properly marked as minor edits. People who choose to see minor edits on their watchlists should not complain about them. However, have you considered applying for a bot flag to make such edits more invisibly?   — Jeff G. ツ 08:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The first part of your assertion is just plain wrong. I "choose to see minor edits on [my] watchlist", because edits marked as minor often still need to be checked. The edits in question did not swamp my watchlist, but they obviously did others, and they have a perfect right to complain about that. The correct, and only, way to do these kind of mass edits considerately, if they are actually desired, is with a properly discussed and approved bot flag. -- Begoon 10:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Users who check images for issues (administrators, patrollers, rollbackers etc) may choose to review minor edits via their watchlists because there may be problems which require rectification - vandalism, copyright/attribution issues, description issues and so on. It's therefore important that this broad group of users doesn't have their watchlists flooded by edits which don't require to be checked. I'm sorry you were blocked, but being able to effectively review edits on watchlists is important to the smooth running of Commons, and vast numbers of non bot minor edits seriously impede that process. If you're making hundreds or thousands of edits at very high speed, which we can trust not to require further analysis, they should be done using the bot flag. You shouldn't be flooding watchlists with minor edits, let alone having the sheer audacity to suggest we just ignore minor edits. Nick (talk) 10:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The question is not about my changes, but the changes made by hundreds of other users. These categories are created daily and thousands of files are moved to the right category every day. How should a user know what strategy those users are tracking who have these articles on the personal watch list. For example, I want to see the changes to my articles, and I do not want anyone to change them without me seeing it. May I just make one such change, or ten, or a hundred? Can I put my own files in the right category? How should a user know what someone is allowed to do? --GT1976 (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't why this discussion has to be in the admins' noticeboard instead of the village pump as no admin attention is IMHO required here. To your original question whether all those categories are right and should be filled with massive moves. My opinion is that you are just placing too much emphasis on something with little importance and relevance. I don't see any real benefit to date-related categories at day level and I definitely see no benefit in moving millions of files from categories like "Tunisia in 2017" to "Tunisia photographs in 2017".
The discussion I expect is rather whether we have to move all existing catetories without the term "photograph" to new categories with that term and all millions files along with them (apart from those ca. 0,00001% files that are ilustrations but no photographs). As long as this discussion doesn't take place taking about individual cats falls short to me.
About your complains, once more: spam is not the same as flooding, which is what you have been actually doing (and in a way I haven't seen in my 10 years here) just to satisfy your hunger for edits. It hasn't been either an (always malicious) admin, but at least 2 and several other users that have been warning you. Poco2 14:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
In my blocklog "SPAM" was written. If the categories are not wanted and allowed by someone, then they must generally be banned or taken care that they are not recreated or systematically filled. I and many others (as you can see on my discussion page) do not understand why administrators block a single person and watch how these categories are created in large numbers, and in the future, just those categories will exist even more massively. --GT1976 (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The original block was "11:28, 28 September 2017 A.Savin (talk | contribs) blocked GT1976 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 3 days (account creation blocked) (Vandalism: massive category spam despite of requests not to do it)". In the preceding five hours, GT1976 did many categorizations with Cat-a-lot (operating as fast as it can), and manual edits which totaled no more than four per minute. Admittedly, the categorization edits could have been considered minor and marked as such by toggling "Editor / Mark all edits minor by default" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing, but that is a PITA to remember for each Cat-a-lot run, or conversely toggling "This is a minor edit" for each non-minor edit. To the credit of GT1976, that is exactly the editor's newly learned behavior. These edits are subcategorizing photos, and in some cases creating new sub cats for the purpose. How is that wrong? Would it be appropriate to have a bot account do that instead? If so, I volunteer to do it with JeffGBot (if approved for a bot flag for that task).   — Jeff G. ツ 22:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
First there should be an alignment if these categories are considered relevant. I would also bring in an additional aspect. Some time (years ago) there was mutual agreement, that hidden categories should only be filled by the person uploading the material or filled non-systematically by other users. Implying that the uploader saw some specific need to add this additional information or that it was added based on a case-by-case decision. I would vote to apply the same logic here. --Schlurcher (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
@Schlurcher: These are not hidden categories.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I understand. Thus, I vote for to apply the same logic here. Maybe they should be hidden? --Schlurcher (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
[Not having inspected this user's edits, let me be clear that I'm not saying that this is the situation here.] The problem with most edits of this sort, as things stand now, is that they either violate COM:OCAT or result in the removal of an internationalisation template. "Category:Photographs taken on DATE" is routinely applied by means of a template, e.g. something from today is {{Taken on|2017-12-19}}, a convenient internationalised template. This template takes no parameters, except for one disabling the categorisation (which I've never seen done), and as such the process of adding a national category to a file using this template has always (in my experience) involved either overcategorisation, with the image being in the general Taken on X category and the country category (COM:OCAT), or the editor complies with OCAT by removing the template and making the file page less useful. Aside from improvements to pages not using the category in the first place (to which I do not object), the only way to resolve this situation, in my mind, is to implement a geographic parameter in the template. And finally, this shouldn't be a hidden category: it's good for finding events and scenes as of a specific date. It's not a maintenance, or tracking, or other-internal-purposes category. Nyttend (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Confusion re uploads by user RagsDash

I'm afraid I may have made a bit of a mess here.

Special:Contributions/RagsDash has uploaded a series of pictures of oil paintings, all described as being by "Patrick O'Brien". These came to my attention when being added to pages on Wikipedia. The first couple I saw were of Age of Sail sea subjects and so I supposed they were by the deceased author of sea stories; since he died in 2000 they would almost certainly be copyvio.

It turns out that they are supposedly by a living artist of the same name (whose existence I have not verified) who the uploader's contribs suggest they are, or are closely associated with. I've been through and changed all my speedy F1s to "no evidence of permission" tags, but I'm mentioning this here since it seems plausible some bot (or human) is going to notice me removing a bunch of F1 tags and suspect shenanigans. Sorry about all this. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Pinkbeast, I've left a note for RagsDash. Nyttend (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Some of them seem to have been deleted. I fear that is my fault; if the uploader is the artist and if they understood what Commons licensing entailed, they were useful material. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

This message

Guanaco seems to be away but does someone know how to use a bot to apply the {{License review}} tag to images this uploader User:Ak ccm uploaded in 2011 from Mushroom Observer that have not been marked? Secondly, is it OK to pass a thumbnail version of an image that was uploaded as I asked Guanaco...in one case. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Guanaco: appears to be back.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: I used VisualFileChange to add {{Licensereview}} where it was needed. I deselected images containing {{Extracted from}}, {{Derived from}} and similar. In total I added 278 LR tags. For the particular image with the thumbnail, I think it's clear that the image was there in full resolution in the past, but no longer due to technical problems. I would pass that one. However, in general I would fail an image and start a DR if it was clearly at the source in the past, but its removal may have been copyright-related. Guanaco (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_66&oldid=274076605"