Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 73

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

File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-gcr.svg

Hello, this file(), which has a poor quality image, has a duplicate () that I would like to delete, but the duplicate contains a better image than the original file. I would like to know if you can delete the duplicate file, while taking its image of good quality to replace that of the original file, if possible ???

At the end, it should have to remain the good quality image of the duplicate with the link of the original file, if you know what I mean ! LeGuyanaisPure (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Technically, I can merge File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-gcr-new.svg into File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-gcr.svg since they are the same file with minor tweaks so COM:OVERWRITE would be ok. But I'd like to hear from the uploader of the "better" version if they accept that. Acagastya? --Majora (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Majora: Oh yes, he accepts completely, because in fact I asked him to change the image quality of the original file, but he preferred to create another file with better quality, and then when I asked him to merge the files, he told me that he is not enough too qualify, to ask an administrator, which will take me here, so don't hesitate, please do it, and don't forget when you merge the files, it's the duplicate who has the image of better quality, not the original ...! LeGuyanaisPure (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Majora: If I recall correctly, I ran into some issues while uploading a newer version, and hence I had to go for different upload. I obviously, do not have rights to move the file. I am fine with you overwriting the file.
acagastya 06:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment - I processed a Duplicate this morning so the issue should be resolved Gbawden (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gbawden: Oh no, thank you for merging the two files but you kept the image with poor quality, I will try to see to the workshop if the problem can be resolved, thank you anyway ! LeGuyanaisPure (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@LeGuyanaisPure: I merged the files. --Majora (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Majora: Thank you, thank you, thank you, it's been months I was trying to find someone to solve this problem, thank you again ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeGuyanaisPure (talk • contribs) 00:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Need to restore photo deleted by "Filedelinkerbot"

The wiki page for "Ben Field (author)" [1] was last edited by "Filedelinkerbot" and the edit consisted of deleting the photo of Ben Field. I do not understand why this was deleted as this is a scanned copy of an original photo of Ben Field and would like to know how to restore the photo that was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmbragin (talk • contribs) 18:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Do not reupload files that have been deleted, Vmbragin. The correct way of going about this would be to have requested undeletion with you rationale at COM:UDR. I have redeleted the image you uploaded. Please don't do that again. It was deleted because it was a scanned file. Copyright exists well beyond even the death of the photographer in most countries and we would need some sort of permission in order to host it here. When you reuploaded the photo you even marked it as own work. Which is a blatant lie. Do not mark things as your own work unless you physically took the photo. Scanning a photo does not void the original author's copyright. Lying about copyrights here is pretty much the most egregious thing someone can do. The photo is of a deceased person so it is probably possible to upload it under fair use directly to the English Wikipedia where it was displayed but not to Commons. Commons is only for free media. Not fair use. --Majora (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Bkl fig1.svg

Please delete the uploads of 13:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC) and 13:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC) for User:Lantonov per File talk:Bkl fig1.svg#How to delete extra revisions.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done 12:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC) and 12:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC) revisions of File:Bkl fig1.svg were deleted. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Remove the versions

Please remove the Metadata info from

and their history versions please . --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 08:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@It's gonna be awesome: You should remove the metadata from these images yourself and reupload them (overwrite, not as a separate file). When done, admins can hide the original versions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I get it. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 09:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: Done. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 11:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 Thank you.--It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 11:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Swap a protected file

Can one of the sysops kindly swap File:Welcome to Wikipedia - fa.svg with File:Welcome to Wikipedia - fa - new.svg please? Alternatively, can you unprotect that file temporarily so I can upload the new version and maintain history? Thanks! Huji (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done I lowered protection level, it is semi-protected now. Taivo (talk) 07:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Taivo: I get an upload error when trying to upload a new version; the reason being this image is used on fawiki's home page (which is essentially why I needed to replace it). Can you upload the new version yourself, and revert the protection level to sysop as well?Huji (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
If you need someone to confirm the new content still reads the same as the old one, User:4nn1l2 can do so I believe Huji (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Huji: ✓ Done Uploaded and protected. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

revdel copyvio

Hey, there! Somebody might want to revdel these edits on F-FDTL CAS's user talk page since they contain copyrighted text from [2] (or maybe just nuke the whole page as there's nothing of interest to be found there anyway and the user has been blocked for spamming). This technically is a copyvio as well (content is CC-BY-SA from pt:Forças_de_Defesa_de_Timor-Leste, but the terms of the license have been violated as neither the authors nor the general source have been mentioned). Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Both instances removed. --Majora (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Block Review

@A.Savin: blocked @Панн: indefinitely for nominating File:Юрий Швыткин1.jpg for deletion, with the rationale "Vandalism: Nominating non-suspicious files for deletion as copyvio despite requests not to do so and ultimate warning". Contrary to this purport, the file is indeed suspicious:

  1. This is a high resolution, professionally-staged image of a notable person, lacking EXIF data;
  2. The uploader has a history of copyvios regarding the image's' subject: a) they created the subject's ru.wiki article using copyvio text; b) they tried to direct link a copyvio image in that article; and c) they then substituted "this image" when they saw the direct link didn't work;
  3. The image appears to be from the same set (if not the same image) as others available prior to its upload (e.g., here);
  4. The file is actually an out-of-process recreation of File:Юрий Швыткин.jpg deleted by @Jcb:

In short, that legitimate concern about this file exists should not be in doubt. While Панн's nomination statement was not as thorough, no admin who was assuming good faith would have called this "vandalism," let alone blocked Панн for this nomination. Note that this is not about whether the image is actually a copyvio; the point is that there is concern enough to warrant a DR discussion, and that is all Панн did. This was an abusive block. I request that Панн be unblocked and that A. Savin actually read and apply COM:AGF going forward. Эlcobbola talk 20:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  •  Comment: regardless of whether the block was legitimate, I find Elcobbola's behavior: [3]+[4] insulting and disrespectful. Sealle (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    Sealle found Elcobbola’s “utter nonsense” and “abusive closure” disrespectful. But was A.Savin’s “You are undesirable here”
    Русский: Вы здесь нежелательны
    from the same page respectful and non-insulting? IMHO fellow Commoners can now realize why I am here, not in ru.Wikipedia (despite my native Russian). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    When the law is on your side, pound the law. When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When nothing is on your side, pound the table. Sealle's abusive closure was called out, so he's pounding the table. I am perfectly content that someone who would template a regular over a bruised ego isn't genuinely concerned about respect. Эlcobbola talk 21:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    Elcobbola, you don't need to waste your rhetoric energy, it's clear enough that you are proud of your rudeness. There's no drama, just one more person in my life to be treated with disdain. Sealle (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
"blocked Панн indefinitely for nominating File:Юрий Швыткин1.jpg" is a lie. I didn't block ever anyone just because of one certain RfD. Show me an example, if you know otherwise. I blocked Панн after a long history of inappropriate editing such as wrong categorization, overcategorization, copyvio uploads, and marking non-problematic files. Панн's edits require permanent monitoring, as the half ore more are inappropriate by some means and require fixing. They already were blocked previously for similar issues. They are already indef'ed on Russian WP for systematic copyright violations. Just yesterday, I gave ultimate warning where I announced their indefblock in case of continuing, among other things, falsely nominating/marking files. Today it indeed occured and I just redeemed my promise to block them in this case. What's wrong with it? It is not me who should be blocked but Elcobbola for wrong accusations and personal attacks about abusive behaviour. --A.Savin 21:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
(ec) And regarding the RfD, I still think we should not play a detective and assume bad faith, if there is a user who uploaded just one file which is in high resolution, showing a notable subject and only found outside Wikimedia projects in a much lower resolution and all with a later publication date than the upload on Commons. Yes there is no EXIF -- so what? I know established users who are uploading all their stuff without EXIF whatsoever for some not really plausible privacy reasons. I strongly disagree, but I know no rule where there always has to be EXIF. --A.Savin 21:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
"blocked Панн indefinitely for nominating File:Юрий Швыткин1.jpg" is a lie." Well, let's see: you said "Не говорите теперь, что я вас не предупреждал." ("Don't say I didn't warn you") and called this DR the "last straw" [5]. Which one of us is lying? Эlcobbola talk 21:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't get your point -- I warned Панн not to do dubious RfD anymore, they did nonetheless, I blocked. Anything wrong here? --A.Savin 21:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Mithili Wikimedians User Group Logo.svg

Please delete this file as revised version is available at File:Maithili Wikimedians User Group Logo.svg. Kind regards, — TBhagat (contribs | talk) 07:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Taivo (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Source URL changed or permanently broken

This file File:BentoXVI-38-11052007.jpg, uploaded by me almost 12 years ago, was tagged as "File source is not properly indicated" because the URL doesn't exist anymore. Well, if so, almost all files from Agência Brasil should be put in the death corridor. Dantadd✉ 18:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I had taken these back out of the queue.. I don't understand. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dantadd: Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with incategory:"Photographs by Agencia Brasil" hastemplate:"no source since", I was too late or made a mistake while removing files from the license review queue.. I'm working on a solution at User:Alexis Jazz/Proposal incubator#Acceptance of files from external sources without a license review, input is welcome. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Green Wing (Series 1).ogg

When I try to transfer this file via FileExporter, I get a message saying that I seem to misuse templates. I didn't have this problem when I was transferring other audio files. My question is: can someone else please do the transferring? --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done I edited Special:AbuseFilter/74 and then imported File:Green Wing (Series 1).ogg. This problem should not happen again. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Faux blason pour le village de [[Cunfin]] dans le département de l'Aube (France)

Bonjour.
Je suis le créateur et gestionnaire de tous les sites consacrés à Cunfin, village du département de l'Aube en France.
A la demande du Maire du village, je me bats depuis des années pour faire supprimer un faux blason qui circule sur internet pour notre village qui n'a pas d'armoiries officielles.
Comme certains contributeurs ne veulent rien comprendre de mes explications et ne font rien pour l'annuler, suite indication qui m'a été donnée, je me trouve dans l'obligation de m'adresser directement auprès de vous pour annuler ce faux blason objet du fichier image Blason ville fr Cunfin 10.svg ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blason_ville_fr_Cunfin_10.svg ) qui subsiste sur Wikipédia.
J'ai été contraint d'ajouter la page suivante sur le site du village → http://cunfin.wixsite.com/cunfin/message-d-attention-genealogique dont le message d'attention explique tout et prouve ce que j'avance concernant le faux blason.
J’espère enfin "cette fois-ci" frapper à la bonne porte pour être entendu afin que ce faux blason disparaisse de Wikipédia, Merci et bien cordialement. --Utilisateur:Kikipiem Discussion utilisateur:Kikipiem - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikipiem (talk • contribs) 18:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Under discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blason ville fr Cunfin 10.svg. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Category moves

Could an admin review User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/Category moves and approve/disapprove some of the moves? The last removals was a month ago. With all the North Macedonia requests, the page has exploded and no longer functional. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: Done, but not the macedonian cats (i am not familiar with). Are those requests valid? --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
There was some discussion a few days ago where some users expressed concern that the Macedonian issue should be resolved via bot, and not by manually moving categories and files. But now that I'm trying to find the thread, I don't remember where it was. GMGtalk 17:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
It's presently archived and located at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/02#North_Macedonia, and most users didn't see it as a big problem. I was also able to secure @Blackcat: 's permission. If the chief concern is a supposed lack of bots, then please be aware that RussBot has been very helpful. The job is mostly complete already. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks for finding the link Michaeldsuarez. GMGtalk 13:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Should those requests be performed or no? If yes, i move it to COM:CDC. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: I'm not sure the moves in themselves are really all that controversial. I'm not aware of any international resistance to the agreed upon naming between Greece and North Macedonia. It's just that each project is dealing with the fairly large task of following suit (e.g., [6] [7]). I'm not totally sure we need exactly that level of impressive bureaucracy. The only confounding issue I'm immediately aware of would be simple errors, in renaming categories or files that refer to the region or one of the Greek/Bulgarian provinces rather than the country. GMGtalk 14:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: The requests have already been taken care of. I, and others, already renamed the categories, and Category:Non-empty_category_redirects is virtually cleared of all Macedonia-related categories, so you and the other sysops don't have to worry about carrying out the move requests anymore.
@GreenMeansGo: I performed the moves by hand, using my judgment, so I don't think I made any mishaps regarding the distinction between North Macedonia and the rest of the Macedonia region. If you look at Category:Macedonia_(region) and its subcategories, you can see that there are plenty of categories that I (and others) haven't touched. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Load of Murals

Fae is doing one of his large batch uploads, however I have noticed that there are defined (artists name noted) murals in the batch, so they will need the artist's permission as a 2D work of art (with no Fop in the US). I tagged one, and then realised there are hundreds of them - it's almost impossible to track them all down manually. Does anyone have a suggestion of how to resolve the problem? Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Did not doing? Look closely at the year of upload. You may benefit from considering past related DRs. --Fæ (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Fae: - Sorry - but they have all just flooded Category:Media needing categories as of 23 February 2019, so I naturally assumed they were recent. Normally about 800-1000 images per day, now at 20,000 Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
This is because certain people are obsessed with changing categories like Category:Jon B. Lovelace Collection of California Photographs in Carol M. Highsmith's America Project in the Carol M. Highsmith Archive into hidden categories. If they stopped doing that, these collections would not be falsely marked as "needing categories". The example photo you tagged in is 3 relevant categories already. --Fæ (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Import talk pages from enwiki

Hi. I'm not sure if I should ask this here or at enwiki, but here is my request:

A number of commons files that do not have local copies at enwiki have talk pages created at enwiki, which I believe should be imported to the discussion page of the actual file here at commons. Examples:

There are more, but I want to know if this is the correct place to bring this up. Is it? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: If you think they are still relevant, then you will have to copy manually (with a note to say who put the note on en-wiki) - or ask the original editor to put the note on the commons talk page. Also I would suggest adding an appropriate template from Category:Problem tags to the image page Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm guessing they want us to use Special:Import for them. I don't see the necessity of doing so. If there is a problem with an image there is a problem. There is no need to import comments from other other projects saying so. It can just be handled like it always is. --Majora (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
In each of the the examples above, there are potentially useful comments on the en.Wikipedia talk pages; I don't see how it serves Commons editors or users to leave them there, where they are almost certainly unwatched, nor what harm it would do to copy them here. Perhaps we could have a bot do that; or at least post a pointer, in future? I've put other prototype template for this, {{Discussed on sister project}}; see it in use on File talk:Mao Jiang Qing and daughter Li Na.jpg (It will need more sophisticated coding if it is to be widely adopted). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

File: Plattenepithelkarzinom (Vulva, vordere Kommissur).jpg

Leider sind hier Schreibfehler vorhanden. File muss lauten: File: Plattenepithelkarzinom (Vulva, vordere Kommissur).jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.med Hans Schulz (talk • contribs) 14:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Verschoben von File:Plattenepithelkarzinom (Vulva, obere Kommissdur).jpg nach File:Plattenepithelkarzinom (Vulva, obere Kommissur).jpg. De728631 (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@De728631: What about vordere and obere? User:Dr.med Hans Schulz has used "anterior" in the file description page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: I know, but there is no such file. His only contributions were made at the "obere" filename. De728631 (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@De728631: Just a guess: maybe User:Dr.med Hans Schulz wants to change obere to vordere too. That may justify the usage of "anterior". 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
That is entirely possible, so let's ask @Dr.med Hans Schulz: Zeigt dieses dieses Bild die vordere Kommissur und sollte entsprechend umbenannt werden? De728631 (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@De728631: They replied here. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, 4nn1l2. I have now moved this to File: Plattenepithelkarzinom (Vulva, vordere Kommissur).jpg. @Dr.med Hans Schulz: Ich habe das jetzt noch einmal umbenannt. Vielen Dank auch für das Bild. De728631 (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Please delete above bulleted files. I have File:Wiki Awareness Campaign in Nepal (WACN) Final Logo.svg Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 11:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Jianhui67 T★C 12:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Amr khalid 28

Can any passing admin nuke all uploads by User:Amr khalid 28? They are all blatant copyvios. Regards. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you.T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 22:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge pt and pt-br

By community decision we don't separate pt and pt-br, so could you pleas merge this two pages: Commons:Wiki Loves Love 2019/pt-br and Commons:Wiki Loves Love 2019/pt. Thanks. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 18:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rodrigo.Argenton: Please provide the link to the community consensus, and I will act accordingly. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
4nn1l2 Jesus Christ! Upload a photo and try to find pt-br...
This is a old decision, I'll not remember where this is discussed, but we do not have any pages in pt-br by default, because this increase the work for Lusophone volunteers.
We don't create documentation about some decisions, so you shouldn't demand this kind of doc.
This is just a act of over bureaucracy that could have a bad impact in a near future. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 18:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Please stay on topic. I could find Commons:Licensing/pt-br and Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Licensing/pt-br (2) and many other pages such as Commons:Administrators/De-adminship/Warning message/pt-br, Commons:Welcome log/Header/pt-br, Commons:Non-copyright_restrictions/pt-br, etc. So, I'm inclined to reject your request, but I will leave the decision to the Portuguese-speaking users (admins). 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
DarwIn pleas.
4nn1l2, funny:
Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Licensing/pt-br
Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Pt-br
...
You choose to ignore the Main Page (Página principal), Village Pump (Esplanada)... that are important pages.
We call this confirmation bias.
Anyway, thanks.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 19:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
PS:Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Licensing/pt-br (2) the only vote is to delete, the sysop ignore both volunteers. And the result of a sysop ignoring volunteers is a outdated page, with problems...
I don't see anything funny here. My links provide what we call counterexample. BTW, I consider COM:L one of the most important pages in this project. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
4nn1l2 yes it is, and the version that was not delete have errors, and lack of information that no one fixed for years. That's the point that you are not listening
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 19:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I am not aware of a community decision, and disagree with such a merge. My initial participation in Commons was based on User: Mizunoryu's input at Commons talk:Licensing/pt#Versão em português europeu, in 2010, where it was clearly stated that both are wanted. The two languages codes exist because they are needed, many pages have existed in both codes for many years, and both language codes can and should be used if the users are creating both versions, which they clearly are. -- Hamilton Abreu (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Because you have an opinion, do not mean that is right.
They are not needed, this create a lot of pages that are not updated, or that are simply mirrored. Double the effort to maintenance of Lusophone volunteers.
We do not have enough differences to create both versions, Wikipedia is a clear example that coexistence.
" many pages have existed in both codes for many years"
This is not correct, we have some pages with both codes, but normally one is well cared, and the other not. And we have some pages that should all already be merged, but every time is this nightmare of not informed sysops. A lot of pages created in pt-br was created by Mizunoryu (and some moved by Hamilton Abreu), and others by WMF staffs (or former): [8] [9]... so only one volunteer that had this agenda created a slip.
When we create this division, that practically the only existent case here at Commons, we sing xenophobic and separatists speeches that are surrounding Wiki Lusophone word. This is not welcome, and this not the way to do things here.
We don't have enough volunteers to create and maintain two versions of practically the same content just on a whim.
We don't have pages in en-uk, en-ca, en-au... es-es, es-ar, es-ur,... so why do we would maintain pt-br?
We already had this discussion back years ago, I already linked a 2014 example that lead to the removal of pt-br from Upload description. So I don't know why we have to discuss this again, and again , and again...
And from there to now, makes less and less maintain pt-br active.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 15:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Rodrigo, my opinion is not right because it is mine. It is, however, certainly worth as much as yours, I assume?
If this has to be discussed again, and again, and again... (as you put it) one would think that something is not completely right with it, correct? That you're trying to force something not natural, maybe?
In MediaWiki, the language code pt is for Portuguese from Portugal, Angola, Mozambique, Cape Verde, East Timor, Macau, etc., except Brazil. Brazil has language code pt-br all for itself, for the version of Portuguese from Brazil. There are other language codes for the national variants, not yet fully functioning, but hopefully one day they will be. We should be encouraging that variety, encouraging it to flourish, not hindering it. I hope that all language codes are fully translated some day, and that we can have all versions of Portuguese in all Wikimedia sites, co-existing, as they should, without any version stumping on anyone else's. All language codes default to pt. pt and pt-br default to each other. That is correct and it's how things should be. The MediaWiki interface supports this distinction, and it has been independently translated in pt and pt-br for many years, as it should. The distinction between language codes exists in Mediawiki itself, in translatewiki.net, in mediawiki.org, here in Commons, and in every other Wikimedia site, except in the content of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is the only site I know of, in the whole of the Internet, where both versions and any national variants are forced to somehow artificially "co-exist", but they don't really, as we all know. I'm not gonna go into the whole Wikipedia thing. I am, however, going to ask you to please not bring those wars into Commons!
Anyone fact checking my statements can verify that there have been zero problems in this area in Commons until you, after months of absence, came back and created this problem. Myself and others in Portugal, and Eduardo and others in Brazil, have been translating things independently in pt and pt-br without any wars (quite to the contrary) for years, in the sites mentioned and here in Commons. There are no issues, and there have been no issues between us, for years, as the admins know. Commons, like other Wikimedia sites, shows users the language versions that are available, each user is free to check out pt-br or pt as they wish.
There is no reason whatsoever to prohibit the existence of both as long as there are volunteers doing them. Right? You justify your "prohibition" on the basis of there not being "enough volunteers" but had to ask myself and Eduardo Addad to stop. So, there ARE volunteers, you're just trying to stop them, in order to enforce this prohibition!
Please relax, there is no problem here for you to fix, don't create one, things are working fine and pages and templates are being translated, in both language codes, as everyone can verify. If we're all kind to each other and stop interfering with each other, maybe one day we can celebrate the existence of the full variety of all versions of the wonderful Portuguese language, and their right to exist here, instead of hindering them.
At any event, I assume and hope that Commons will not allow such a policy, unless it is fully supported by equally standing and fully and presently contributing members of all the language varieties at stake.
Hamilton Abreu (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: It's just plain ridiculous to have two language codes of the exactly same language. It's counterproductive and, as Rodrigo said above, just promotes xenophobic attitudes. Dantadd✉ 18:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dantadd: They are not "the exactly same language".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: : Actually they are variants of the exact same language, as American, Australian, British English or Canadian French and Metropolitan French etc. Dantadd✉ 13:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dantadd: I choose to tolerate such variants.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Another non pt speaker giving his opinion based on nothing...
Hamilton Abreu, you talked, you talked, but said nothing.
"Wikipedia is the only site I know" I know WikiSource, Wikiversidade, Wikcionário... and others. And yet, all of they have only one community even Wikcionário.
"there have been zero problems in this area in Commons" another false allegation, I can list here several problems... well, I already did link here some samples, and you ignored, strange, you did a false allegation against facts. You are bold!
"There is no reason whatsoever to prohibit the existence of both [...]", "Please relax, there is no problem here for you to fix [...]", " There are no issues [...]" there is, I already show the problems. How many times you repeat yourself and said nothing?
How about you counter argue my points not try to impose your opinion? The repetition with no argument is a very well know resource to that.
Because there is a problem, you are a part of the problem, and you start to screaming at me and are not proving the opposite of:
  1. The pages are vast similar, and several are only mirrors;
  2. They do not have problems of update and differences in quality between than;
  3. That the community almost always go in direction of merge, (the exception is when there is a not speaker or a person with a cause to defend in the resolution);
  4. Do not have enough volunteers to maintain they;
  5. This division reinforce xenophobic speeches we don't need that;
  6. That the main pages are only in PT and the Licensing is the only exception, as result of a non speaker intervention;
  7. This is the only exception at Commons, Spanish varieties are not in use, even they having a similar disparity between they.
We do not have two Village Pumps, two Welcome pages, two Main Pages... why is that? Why we do not have a Village Pump/pt and a Village Pump/pt-br
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 22:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Rodrigo, for clarity and briefness I will refer to the language variants as pt and pt-br and to the language codes as /pt and /pt-br. Replies:
  1. Pages will be as similar as the variants pt and pt-br are, in the subject-matter of each page. Very short pages may be mirrors, and some are mirrors, yes. So what? We should not be forcing people to read pages in a different variant of their language, nor prohibit volunteers from creating them, because that alienates people and is not aligned with the purpose of Wikimedia.
  2. I don't understand what this point means, but will reply if you care to explain.
  3. There is no such thing as a "merged Portuguese language". We either write in pt or pt-br. Excluding discussion pages, the coexistence of variants in the same page is illogical and would produce subpar content, as you know. To prevent subpar content you then implement another rule, which later requires exceptions here and there, and on it goes. These rules upon rules evolve precisely because of the problem that was initially created. Now, consider this alternative scenario: I look at a page in language code /pt and it is written in pt-br. I copy all its existing translations in /pt to /pt-br. Then, I change the /pt version to pt. You, or any other user, arrives at that page, the page informs you that there are two versions of itself and you can visit and read whichever you want. What's wrong with that? Eduardo then visits the same page, goes to the pt-br version, realises it is incomplete and complements the pt-br version using much of my work as basis (as I may do of his later on). We don't force the speakers of one variant of the language to read pages in the other (but they are free to do so if they wish), and we don't try to prevent others from writing in their variant.
  4. We do have volunteers, the pages are being translated, and maintained, I and others use the Brazilian version as basis if one exists and believe that Eduardo or anyone else uses the Portuguese version if one exists. The very request that originated this dialogue is to «merge» a page that was 100% translated in both language codes. What does even «merge» mean in that request? To delete one of them? The volunteers are here and you are trying to stop us.
  5. I don't understand what you mean by that, but the thing that this division does is to allow all variants of the language to be expressed and coexist in peace. There is nothing wrong with that, we should foster it.
  6. I think that you have been absent for some time. I have been translating here for years now. So has Eduardo. There are many /pt and /pt-br versions and their number is increasing. In some areas there are actually many more in /pt and /pt-br than, say, /fr or /es.
  7. Speakers of Spanish are free to do as they wish. They may even take example from us, as far as I am concerned. Why are they relevant to this conversation?
Finally, the discussion pages that you mention can, of course, be a single page. All other non-discussion pages, templates, etc., which are translatable, can exist in both variants if there are volunteers to create them. And many pages have and should continue to be translated in both variants.
Hamilton Abreu (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

DE: Metadaten löschen

Hallo, kann bitte jemand bei meinem zuletzt hoch geladenen Bild die Metadaten (insbesondere das JPEG-Dateikommentar) entfernen? Vielen dank für die Hilfe. --Reneman (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hallo User:Reneman,
du kannst gerne eine neue Dateiversio hochladen und mich dann benachrichtigen. Dann lösche ich die alte Version.
Grüße
--MB-one (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Hallo MB-one, vielen Dank für den Vorschlag. Ich habe zwei Anläufe benötigt :D Kannst du bitte die beiden alten Dateiversionen löschen? Danke für deine Hilfe. Gruß aus Mainz --Reneman (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@Reneman: ✓ Done Grüße --MB-one (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --MB-one (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

File:JimmyCarterPortrait2 (cropped).jpg

Can someone delete the revision on 27 September 2018 at 14:16? The user who uploaded the image also created a separate file for it here, which was deleted for a copyright violation. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done --jdx Re: 05:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

please help me

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Eifler_scheunendruffi

blocked without a reason ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eifler scheunendruffi (talk • contribs) 12:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Eifler scheunendruffi:
Dein Löschantrag wurde als Störung des Projekts empfunden. Bitte wende dich an de:Wikipedia:Sperrprüfung. Hier auf Commons werden wir dir nicht helfen können.
Grüße
--MB-one (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --MB-one (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Векочел adding confusing license on description pages of images

Hello.
It seems user:Векочел doesn’t understand well how the license information on the description pages of the images work here as he insists to add PD-OLD licenses (or equivalent) to describe the object itself, usually Antique artworks for what I saw.
This is confusing for who wishes to reuse the images as they will see a PD license together with a CC one.
I tried to explain him but he still continues his modifications.
If someone could explain him better than I did and revert his contributions of this kind, that would be great. Sting (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Sting, the images and the paintings, architecture, etc. have different reasons for being public domain. Векочел (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Note that we have special tags like {{Licensed-PD}} for such purposes. (And they should go in the licence section, not the permission field of the info template.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Version deletion in File:'Robinson Crusoe' - Albert Goodwin - 1906.png

After a request of Andy Mabbett I’ve uploaded a rectified version of File:'Robinson Crusoe' - Albert Goodwin - 1906.png, but unfortunately did not pay attention to the potential copy violation as I did upload with the picture frame. Therefore Andy cropped again (despite I had another frameless version uploaded myself), and pointed me to this violation. So, please, do a version deletion of the second incarnation with frame uploaded by me. (The benefit would be that my totally messed up upload comment would be vanish for most people, as well.) — Speravir – 22:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done --Majora (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Majora, but my assumption with the upload comment was apparently wrong … — Speravir – 23:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I also removed the edit summary. I don't delete things outright when I can use COM:REVDEL to perform the same action. That way others know that something happened they just can't see what. Deleting it outright removes the entry entirely which I try to avoid as much as possible. --Majora (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, again. For both, info and action. — Speravir – 00:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Israel to Palestine

User:Huldra seems to be on a massive crusade to change "Israel" into "Palestine" wherever he seems fit. Is an edit like this one a good edit? Debresser (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Debresser: you have been warned before (on en.wp) that you would be blocked if you continued to refer me to me as male. (I am female, and I say so on my user page on en.wp).
And yes, that was definitely a good edit: Israel claims the the whole of Jerusalem belongs to Israel, but NO other country accept this. This is "Wikipedia", not "Israelipedia", Huldra (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
What file moving criterion did you use for that file move, Huldra? While I frankly couldn't care less what we call it the uploader of the quality image you moved apparently saw fit to call it one thing and you moved it without additional comment. Files names should be static as much as possible. That is why we have a separate right to move them around. --Majora (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Mostly obvious error. When people upload files named "Hebron, Israel" or "Kedumim Israel" (see eg [link]), then that is an obvious error: exactly 0 countries on this planet claim that Hebron (a city on the West Bank) or Kedumim (an illegal Israeli settlement on the West Bank) are in Israel (though some extreme Israeli settlers claim so). It is both extremely provocative and inflammatory to add "Israel" to the file names in such cases.
With regards to places in East Jerusalem: the status is that Israel has annexed it, but no other country in the world has accepted this. Therefor, calling it Israel-2007-Jerusalem-Al-Aqsa_Mosque is clearly wrong. BUT: reading the Commons:Disputed territories, I think that removing both "Israel" and "Palestine" from the file name would possibly be a better solution for places in East Jerusalem, so that is what I will do to in the future, Huldra (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. And I agree that it would be beneficial to maintain as neutral a point of view as possible going forward. We don't want to import enwiki's I-P nonsense just because people cause issues with their image titles. I want to nip any potential move warring in the bud right now. --Majora (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
As for me, fair enough on two conditions:
  1. You should also remove the reference to Palestine from the names you've already changed.
  2. Removing both Palestine and Israel from the file names shouldn't be limited on "East Jerusalem", the same should be applied for places in "West Bank" under Israeli administration as well (e.g. eastern part of Hebron with the Cave of Patriarchs). I agree, that these places are not recognized as Israeli territory and haven't been even annexed by Israel; on the other hand, they haven't been recognized as Palestine or even established as Palestine administrated territories either.
Since you understand so well, how provocative and inflammatory perception can the Israeli POV cause, I'm sure you will understand that a Palestinian POV has the same effect on the other side.--Shlomo (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: Good question.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@Huldra: Since you feel that strongly about references to your gender, please select radio button "She edits wiki pages" on your Global Preferences.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks for that link; I have done so, Huldra (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@Huldra: Thanks, but it doesn't seem to have taken effect here. Did you check "How do you prefer to be described?" "to be global" there and avoid checking "Set a local exception for this global preference." for the similar radio button at Special:Preferences?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Ah, I hadn't ticked the "Select options below to be global" option...I have now, hope it works? Huldra (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@Huldra: Yes, it works now, thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

This Flickr Account

Is there a clear strong reason why the above flickr account with 62,000 images was blacklisted? I was asked this excellent question in this DR and I have no clue. If Magnolia677 says most of this account's images seem genuine--and I trust this user's judgment--then perhaps this account was blacklisted in error or for a minor mistake? I will hope an Admin can give a response--or consider not blacklisting the account today--if the offense was small. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  • One shouldn't dismiss 62,000 images on a flickr account with a genuine {{Cc0}} license. Maybe Majora or Jcb can determine if most of the images on the source flickr account are OK. It looks like most of the images are own work to me too. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
See Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/09/Category:Photographs by Alan Levine. Probably a good idea to notify User:Ronhjones. And not a good idea to nominate images for deletion for no other reason than that the account is listed as having some questionable uploads and shouldn't have its files automatically approved by bots. COM:QFI isn't a blacklist, it's a list of accounts that need critical review. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Ogunyankin Taiwo

Can any passing admin nuke all uploads by User:Ogunyankin Taiwo? They are all blatant copyvios. Regards. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 10:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done thanks for reporting. Natuur12 (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Natuur12, this have not been dealt with? T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Whoops, visual change hick up. This is now fixed. Natuur12 (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you my friend. Regards. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Blackcat (talk · contribs)

I have sadly to report that I have had to block Blackcat (talk · contribs) for a week for edit-warring. He made some controversial moves to Anfield (stadium) with which I disagreed, and deleted some categories I'd created, calling them "nonsense". I reverted and pointed out his erros on his talk page. However, he immediately reverted the whole lot before any agreement had been reached, and without launching a CfD as he was by then fully aware that there is a disagreement. He even moved Hillsborough memorial, Anfield to Hillsborough memorial, Liverpool, which is just wrong because there is one onn Hayment in the city centre. Now I'm currently not well so may not be around later, but as an admin he should know that you don't edit-war however right you are so you shouldn't need warnings. I'm tired. Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I would consider this to be a bad block since you are clearly involved. You are in the midst of a disagreement about content with Blackcat. In my opinion you should have asked an uninvolved admin to asses if action is required. And you should have cited valid sources supporting your claims. Blackcat supported his argument using a source. I would also like to point out that the three revert rule isn't policy at Wikimedia Commons. This doesn't mean that Blackcat is completely innocent though. Natuur12 (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I do agree with Natuur12 above. Blocking someone one week (even an admin) for a parenthesis in a category name seems a little too much; even more if you're directly involved. Of course edit wars should be blocked when they start, but because the block is on the user's bahviour, and because it's an experienced user, it would have been much better to have moved the discussion here, so that the block could eventually be given by a not involved admin. I suggest to unblock Blackcat, protect the category, and open a CfD. --Ruthven (msg) 19:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I find the statement left here to be rather problematic. While contributing to a topic area over an extended period of time is helpful for discussing changes relevant to that topic area, it in no way gives the right to unilaterally decide what goes and what does not. I am going to unblock Blackcat to give you two, amongst others, the opportunity to sort this out via discussion. Sort it out that way (appropriately) and save the community from having to dish out more blocks or other sanctions against you both. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I may understand that @Rodhullandemu: is involved in things about Liverpool which to an extent is good because those who live in a place are the most suitable to provide with media from the said place, though I am perplexed when one gets to my talk page saying «Do you live in Liverpool? Have you spent years creating and categorising its images?» (what if I got in anyone's page saying «Do you live in Rome?»). I didn't know that living in a place gave the last say on the categories related to the said place. So far I knew that sources are what we should rely on, rather than personal knowledge (because we can verify the former and almost never the latter). I provided a source that backed what I did, and frankly I didn't expect to be blocked because of that. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 20:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
When sources are at odds, we use disambiguation to resolve that. But I despair of people who come along here and do things that do not need doing- we have enough stuff that does need doing to waste our time on unnecessary work. But to introduce factual errors in the process isn't helpful. To dismiss a carefully-crafted, taxonomically and epistemologically correct set of subcategories as "nonsense" without even a CfD or the courtesy of a discussion makes me feel that I'm wasting my time here. But anyone who cares about sources vs local knowledge is free to consider the reverse position here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
No, pardon me, but when the official site of LFC says "Anfield", I'm perplexed to hear that you complain about caring about sources vs local knowledge, 'cause I've been told by Wikipedians/Commoners with more seniority than me that the principle here is "verifiability, not truth"--- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 23:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
{{Your response tells me you haven't thought this through. Later, there will be reasons for you to consider why you made a mistake}}. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@Blackcat and Rodhullandemu:
1) "Officiality" is not equivalent to "truth". Categories may use alternative (but still valid) names to avoid parenthesis/brackets, or may not. That's up to discussion and consensus.
2) If deleting a category is controversial, IMHO that category should haven't been speedy-deleted but sent to CfD (or user-talk-page-discussion). IMHO the "Distant views..." one wasn't that bad. It wouldn't be the first "remote/distant views of..." category in Commons (see Category:Remote views).
3) The block was highly unappropiate, and not only because it was an involved admin the one applying it.
Said that, since the block was lifted, there's apparently no need for much discussion here (this thread is going nowhere). Strakhov (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

edit request

Please edit Commons:Picture of the Year/2018 to show the part T:25.--Roy17 (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Special:Diff/341514495 Pinging involved persons: @Steinsplitter and Zhuyifei1999. --jdx Re: 15:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete category

Please delete Category:Quai de la Pêcherie, allready exists with the title Category:Quai de la Pêcherie (Lyon). Nonopoly (talk) 08:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done --jdx Re: 10:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

IP check

A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Useful and appreciated. Based on one or two checks I just made of known compromised IP addresses (not just on Foundation sites) I got some variable results but that is always the way with these tools. Certainly a worthwhile added resource. --Herby talk thyme 18:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Plus - I've added the tool to the IP contribs page so it is easy to access now. --Herby talk thyme 12:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Herbythyme: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Herbythyme: Oh man, thank you soooo much! Perhaps you know how to add https://tools.wmflabs.org/guc/index.php to the header of Special:Contributions for registered users? For IPs it is in the footer. I find this tool quite useful when fighting/reporting cross-wiki vandals. --jdx Re: 16:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Hum - I will give it a go but it will be tomorrow now. It isn't my favourite subject but I usually get there in the end --Herby talk thyme 17:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jdx: err - think it is already there. I just got your global contribs that way? --Herby talk thyme 17:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Herbythyme: That's strange. On top of e.g. Special:Contributions/Jdx I can see only: For Jdx (talk | block | block log | uploads | logs | deleted user contributions | user rights management | mass delete | filter log). --jdx Re: 17:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jdx: It's on the footer - not sure it can go on the header. --Herby talk thyme 18:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Herbythyme: Ha ha. There is an old bug related to language settings! There is the footer for en, de, fr and ru (those I've just checked), but there isn't for pl. --jdx Re: 18:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
It seems that I have to create MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer/pl. --jdx Re: 18:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Everything is fine now. --jdx Re: 19:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Just a heads up

Just a note for those with an interest in such things. The past few days have seen a number of account spamming via uploading images. They tend to be named "buy prescription drugs online call". It's not that new an idea but there do seem to have been more recently. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Abuse filter to be fixed

Hello, I'm reaching out to you because as part of T202095 the user group "OTRS-member" is being changed to "otrs-member", and we want to make sure that no existing filter is affected by this change. For more information, see the previous request. Unfortunately, the filter search linked there didn't include deleted filters, and specifically excluded filter 65. Could someone please fix it as well? Thanks! --Daimona Eaytoy (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Requesting deletion of OV templates

A participant of Commons:SVG Translation Campaign 2019 in India has created {{Other versions}} template for translations. But initially, the user did it the wrong way. As a result, there were some duplicate templates. So I kindly request deletion of these. No pages link to these or use them.

KCVelaga (talk · mail) 22:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. --jdx Re: 05:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Can any passing admin please nuke all uploads by User:Kwame Yaw Ofosu? They are blatant copyvios. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 08:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. --jdx Re: 09:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Question about protection editnotice

Hello, i often edit main page in french, but when i edit, i see this editnotice :

Note: This page has been semi-protected so that only established users can edit it.

    • 19:19, 10 March 2007 Guillom ( talk | contribs ) protected Accueil (main page in french [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop]) (hist) (thank)

My question is : Why i see a red banner instead of that (because i tried on Main page in english and it's work normally) :

Regards. Tomybrz Bip Bip 20:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Keeley Hawes 2014.jpg

A new editor overwrote this image (twice) with a different, copyrighted image of the same actress, and it was reverted (twice). Then someone (maybe the same user) uploaded the copyrighted image with its own file name -- File:Keeley Hawes 2019.jpg (which has since been deleted). But the copyrighted image is still pictured in the File History for File:Keeley Hawes 2014.jpg. Could an admin please go in and remove the copyrighted image from the File History? -- WikiPedant (talk) 05:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done --jdx Re: 05:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

elinor roosevelt

in your information on mrs Roosevelt it states that president kennedy had all the flags flown at half mast in the world. i believe that should be in the country not the world. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.240.41.85 (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

When the president orders flags at half mast, it does apply to all officially flown national flags in the world, such as those at military bases, consulates, and embassies. GMGtalk 14:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I quit receiving Wikimedia Picture of the Day emails.

Hi, I'm Mark Bernacki. I've been subscribed to receive Wikimedia's Picture of the Day emails for a few years now but lately, I quit receiving them. What do I need to do to start receiving them again?

Mark Bernacki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark6004137 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mark6004137: Subscribe to daily-image-l. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Question

Admins, an unnecessarily belated simple case of DR, like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kościół św. Wojciecha w Lidzbarku (2015).jpg, can it be closed by non-admins? I am referring to "clear" keep cases. We cannot "delete" anything. --E4024 (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  • If the Polish also gives no indication of a reason to delete, other than the uploader wanting to delete years after the fact for no specific reason, yes I think that would be OK to just say "keep". I can't read the Polish. - Jmabel ! talk 03:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I do not even know how to say "hello" in Polish. However, Google makes an understandable translation: "incompatibility between the author and the recorder". That sentence is wrong because the two names indicate the same user. Now there was (because the file is already kept) the author name in the MD issue. How to know if an author name in MD, say Józef Bem (Murad Paşa) and User:Józef Bem (Murad Paşa) are the same person? I always advocate that in those cases we should ask for an OTRS check. I recognize I have not given the best example for my question to admins, but my "question to the admins" was not answered by you. You just opened another discussion to which I contributed my opinion above. Jmabel, my question to you was, if we simple users could close simple "keep" cases in DRs. Your answer should (could, might) be 1. No, because... 2. Yes, you can but please be more careful, for example this DR is a tricky one and you did not notice the detail. 3. Yes, they can, but not you, E4024, because of what I just said in item (2)... Etc. Please, admins, when we ordinary people make you a question give a direct and clear answer. Thanks a lot and greetings to all who read this. --E4024 (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The answer is "yes but be careful".
  • I have no idea what prior discussion you are referring to. This discussion was opened with a top-level header in a new section, and does not link to any discussion except the DR in question. - Jmabel ! talk 15:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. My question to admins is kindly answered by you and the discussion ended. The other discussion was about the DR "itself". As I did not dare close it there is no mistake done. All is well. Cheers. --E4024 (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

An expert view need on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Handcuffed

Recently I filed Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Handcuffed over some concerns I had. However, I'd like an expert view from as many administrators as possible, because based on subsequent comments and related discussions both on and off-wiki. I may have over-reacted with respect to some of the images, and that I lack the competence to evaluate material like this appropriately.

So far the only response in the DR has a been a single contributor, whose posted largely the same deletion rationale on a number of images which might be said to be 'explicit' in some way. This to me is not the best way of resolving a more complex issue, that for the most part is not copyright related.

Thusly I am appealing to the administrators, many of them how do have the competence to handle the issues raised, to provide an expert view and update resolve the DR ( made in good faith), and the guidance on Commons, so that the same arguments are not repeated again and again.

I am also considering taking an enforced wiki-break, because I'm nearing a 'burn-out' point. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Nothing specially to do here. You should stay from nudity stuff. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Enabling private AbuseFilters to be logged publicly

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T218527

Hello! The section title sounds worse than it is. Here's the TL;DR -- I'm proposing we enable the $wgAbuseFilterNotificationsPrivate configuration variable for AbuseFilter on Commons, which will log hits to private filters to Special:AbuseLog. This does not make the filter themselves public, only the log entry.

Jon Kolbert and I, among others, have been working tirelessly to deal with some severe, long-term abuse that is affecting content wikis. Special:AbuseFilter/212 (private) for instance works great, but it is not something we could put into disallow (far various reason I won't go into). Instead, it's better to monitor the logs and take action as soon as it's tripped. The problem is we don't have a mechanism to monitor for when it has tripped outside hitting refresh on the filter page. Usually we arrive too late, and damage has been done.

Enter w:User:MusikBot/AbuseFilterIRC. This IRC bot allows you to subscribe to certain filters, and you'll get pinged the second they are tripped. I've been using it for many filters on the English Wikipedia (where $wgAbuseFilterNotificationsPrivate is enabled), and it's been very effective. I am able to revert/block/ignore swiftly, which over time has in my experience proven more effective than playing cat and mouse by updating the filter once the LTA learns their way around it. The only requirement is that hits to private filters be logged publicly, so the bot knows about them.

Allow me to make it abundantly clear that by enabling this option, the details of the filter are never exposed, only that the filter was tripped. Just as it is now, only users with the appropriate rights can view the filter, or even it's dedicated log. On English Wikipedia, as far as I know, the public logging hasn't worked against us. Yes, the LTAs can see there is a filter tracking them, if they know to look, and generally this doesn't tell them much (especially if you give the filter an obscure name). Much of the time you're disallowing anyway, and obviously they will be aware of that.

Because this is a wiki configuration, we need some rough consensus here for it to be enabled. Hence why I am inviting your input. I was going to post at Commons talk:Abuse filter but it seems this venue is chiefly about reporting false positives. That brings about another advantage to enabling $wgAbuseFilterNotificationsPrivate -- non-admin volunteers who work at this venue can at least see that a filter was in fact tripped, even if they don't know what it is for. Not a huge selling point, but it does help with debugging.

Thoughts? Thank you for your consideration! — MusikAnimal talk 21:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for the feedback! I have filed a request to enable this option at phab:T218527. — MusikAnimal talk 23:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Personality rights violation

Hello,

To all commons sysops, please take a look at the following 2 photos of the same passport:

I think they qualify for speedy deletion. The licenses seem to be inadequate, and even if they were valid, it would still be a violation of personality rights to publish photos of somebody's passport without their consent. Furthermore, there has been a complaint by the Romanian authorities regarding those images for violatind personal data regulations and so forth (here).

Regards, --Mihai (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support deletion. At least File:RoPassportInfoPage2019.jpg is marked as "Specimen", so these may be fake personal data after all. Anyhow, the whole thing looks a bit fishy regarding the sources and two different passport ID numbers for the same person. If this came from some sort of government channel, I would keep it but in this case I'm doubtful that the lady shown in the photograph gave her consent to this. De728631 (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Deleted both. Yann (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Pursuant to concerns about the UK 'age-filter' for porn...

This is a courtesy notification of a request at Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Legal#Part_3_of_the_Digital_Economy_Act_2017_(United_Kingdom)

for a clarification in regard to the UK's 'age-filter' on what it describes as "pornographic" content.

In informal discussions off-wiki, various views have been expressed that Commons would not be affected, but it was felt that a more formal and qualified confirmation of that informal view was needed.

As I have expressed elsewhere in the past, it would be nice to resolve issues like this fully before Commons is potentially forced into taking reactive measures against the general NOTCENSORED consensus, which has been repeatedly confirmed on many occasions, something I would be very disappointed and concerned about.

In addition owing to a lack of clarity around certain related issues, I find I am unwilling to continue editing on Commons, until such issues have been appropriately clarified. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not totally clear what you are expecting here. It looks like you've already gotten responses from at least a couple of Commons admins on the issue. GMGtalk 23:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @ShakespeareFan00: I urge you to reconsider your self-imposed break; Commons is literally clogged with useless, out-of-scope images which very few people are willing to deal with for fear of being accused of "censorship". I for one appreciate your efforts to improve the overall quality of the project and would be sorry to see you leave for any length of time. Stating the case as simply as possible, we need more editors like you. Don't leave - the issues you've raised here are of vital importance, and I suspect you have a great deal more support than you realize. AshFriday (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

"Template loop detected" in Japanese version of Template:File renaming reasons

See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:File_renaming_reasons?uselang=ja. I don't know how to fix it but it looks like the source of the problem is buried somewhere deep and probably more templates/pages is affected. It seems to be all right for other languages. --jdx Re: 11:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jdx: You should not worry about that. The error is not causing any problem at the moment (save the error message itself!). It is tracked in phab:T196464. 19:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: protection request

Please protect File:Wikimedia Foundation logo - horizontal white.svg and File:Wikipedia-logo-white.svg, because of the de.wikipedia Blackout. Habitator terrae 🌍 18:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

MOVE FILE

Hi my name is LaToya Mack and I am looking to turn my draft into an article. If someone could help me with that. That'd be greatly appreciated.--LaToyaMack (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)LaToyaMack

@LaToyaMack: Please see en:WP:NACTOR. Why are you trying to pass off the work of David Livingston as your own?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I apologize if that's how it came across however that wasn't my intention. Could you please explain what I did wrong? I thought I added his citation in the refrences? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaToyaMack (talk • contribs) 23:58, 20 March 2019‎ (UTC)
  • @LaToyaMack: Signing your posts on talk pages is required by Commons:Signatures policy. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion).
He appears to be the copyright holder. In your initial upload attempt, you specified "source=Own work" and "author=LaToyaMack"; later, you specified "source=http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Travis+Bryant/Premiere+Lionsgate+Pantelion+Film+Overboard/26Ug4uCpn46" and "author=David Livingston//Getty Images". File:Travis+Bryant+Premiere+Lionsgate+Pantelion+26Ug4uCpn46l.jpg was ruled a copyright violation. How did you get authorized to license the file {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

10 PD Mark images

Dear Admins or Reviewers such as Steinsplitter, Christian Ferrer, 4nn1l2, etc,

Someone downloaded these 10 images with a verifiable PD license but the license is PD-Mark. Can someone decide if they should be deleted or kept. The license statement is clear: PD-Terry Davis and are used for Terry A Davis's wikipedia article.

As for File:Terry Davis 2017.jpg, this image by Therese Davis according to the metadata has no verifiable source or license. So, I have tagged it as no source. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I was going to say that I am dubious, but I looked at the wayback machine for http://templeos.org/, where it is stated that the images come from. And the website seemed indeed to be in public domain since a few years 2017, 2018. So I think it is credible that they were published with a public domain statement. First little problem, at least for me, I am reluctant to review images that I don't see myself the publication and I don't know in what extend this kind of web address https://archive.org/details/TempleOSPhotos is trustable or not, I'm skipping my turn, maybe we can keep the images without LR. Secondly some images are unlikely to be selfies see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Terrence Andrew Davis. Hope this help, regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Thanks Christian Ferrer for your reply. I voted to delete in 1 of the DR's. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

WilliamMuse

This user is apparently uploading "joke" images here on Commons and then adding them to articles on English Wikipedia in some kind of attempt at humor. All his uploads were nominated for deletion last week and deleted: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by WilliamMuse. However, he has just simply continued to upload more. At English Wikipedia we would say he is "clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia". Gnome de plume (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done I warned William. If this does not help, then he must be blocked. Taivo (talk) 08:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, Yann warned him already and William stopped uploading out-of-scope images after that, so I self-reverted and here's nothing to do at moment. Taivo (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Metadata

Hi everyone. Is it possible de edit the metadata of a file? thank you in advance.--Salim974 (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Salim974: Not on-wiki, but you can overwrite a file with a replacement file that has corrected metadata, subject to COM:OVERWRITE.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: alright! Thx!--Salim974 (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Salim974: You're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Seven month old discussion needs closing

Hi, can an admin please take a look at this? It's been universally agreed with and unless it's dealt with, Commons will continue to provide free advertising for image thieves. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

subject of image appears to be misidentified.

An editor on English wikipedia claims that File:Mathieu de Montmorency - Young.jpg is actually Auguste de Staël, not Mathieu de Montmorency. This appears to be a valid concern. This is identified as "Portrait of Mathieu de Montmorency (1767-1826)" by an unknown painter, and sourced to the dead link http://www.histoire-empire.org/persos/madame_de_stael.htm. I found the original painting in "The Chateau of Coppet: Portrait Salon" http://www.swisscastles.ch/Vaud/Coppet/covisiteguidee6_e.html#cinq described as Madame de Staël`s child "Auguste de Staël ( 1790 – 1827) represented in front of the Castle of Coppet by François Gérard" The official website of Coppet Castle describes the portraits in the portrait salon https://www.chateaudecoppet.com/le-salon-des-portraits. It mentions a portrait of Auguste de Stael (Auguste, oldest son of Madame Stael, portrait by Gerard [translated from French]). It also mentions a bust of her second husband, John Rocca, but makes no mention of a portrait of Mathieu de Montmorency. If this is correct the image needs to be renamed, and much of the content needs to be redone. I can't move the image myself, and I didn't want to simply change the info and request a move without discussion. The uploader has not been active since 2012. Meters (talk) 06:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done - thanks for the research. The original page is available here via the Wayback Machine and does not mention the identity of the sitter. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Meters (talk) 05:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Version-deletion request

Please can someone delete the original, uncropped, version of File:Square and cathedral, Xanten.jpg, which includes the non-free frame. (Do we have a template for such requests?) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done --MB-one (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Yes, we do. Next time, please tag the file with {{Non-free frame revdel}}. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi. Can an admin please delete File:Владимир Зеленский 2018.jpg and its multiple extracted images (no permission)? Cheep (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Regular deletion process is going. It started on 19th of March and it lasts one week. After that the file will be deleted without any need to mention it here. Taivo (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Can Taivo provide a link to the “regular deletion process”? Isn’t Commons:Deletion requests/File:Владимир Зеленский 2018.jpg red? As for {{npd}}, this was an arbitrary edit by one Geka_b (talk · contribs) to an alleged own work and I sometimes undo such disruption on sight, when fresh. If the file is evidently copyvio, then it should be marked as such. But in the case where only a random suspicion exists the deletion has to go really via regular process. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

MacArthur Foundation Photos

I have uploaded a bunch of photos of 2018 MacArthur Fellows from the MacArthur Foundation site as their licensing indicates the videos and images are CC-BY. However, I got a message on my English Wikipedia account pointing me to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:MacArthur Foundation Images of Fellows. I was not aware the the issue with the CC-BY licensing from the MacArthur Foundation. Is this still the case?

I'd like some guidance on next steps.

Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Whpq: Yes, that is still the case, nothing has changed. Their licensing for the general public is CC-BY-NC-4.0, which Commons can't accept due to the NC clause (note that their verbiage seems to indicate an ND clause, too). Their licensing for editorial use by Media Organizations is CC-BY-4.0, which Commons can't accept because in the opinion of MF's General Counsel the WMF doesn't qualify. However, if you want to use their files on English Wikipedia, please read WP:F.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks for the info. I'll request their deletion. As for non-free content on the English Wikipedia, all of the 2018 fellows are living people so they would all be deemed replaceable. Cheers. -- Whpq (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I have tagged all the files for deletion. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Whpq. -- Whpq (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
@Whpq: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done I speedied almost all of the images. I will officially close the DR a week later. I have it on my radar. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Translation corrections

Hello all,

I would like to ask the help of an admin to correct 3 Frisian translations. They currently contain faulty language and spelling errors. Thank you very much in advance!

Kind regards --PiefPafPier (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

De keazen lisinsje besjen

'''Jo binne no oanmeld op {{SITENAME}} as "$1".'''
{{MediaWiki:Watchlist-summary}}

De namme fan it bestân dat jo oanbiede begjint mei PICT, DSC, image, ..., wat in net-beskriuwende namme is dy't digitale kamera's trochstrings automatysk jouwe. Kies a.j.w. in namme mei in goede omskriuwing fan jo bestân.

✓ Done Next time, please make edit requests at talk page of associated MediaWiki pages and use {{Edit request}} to draw the attention of an admin. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I'll do that. Thanks again! --PiefPafPier (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Empty categories

Hello.Tm (talk · contribs) has emptied dozens of subcategories of Category:Events in Senado Federal do Brasil.If they are not useful, please delete them.Thanks ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Notified the user. If someone finds them useless, then I suggest a deletion discussion before we empty them out. They look to be events by individual date subcategories which I find quite silly but discussion is still needed IMO. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Non-admin comment: The empty ones all appear to have non-English titles, so they might be deleteable on those grounds. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Me and 1989 deleted the empty categories. Taivo (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Submarine112 copyvios

Hi,

Submarine112 has uploaded several copyvios and has been blocked for that.

Since is free again, Submarine112 has edited File:RoomieOfficial.png.

Here is my question: Are Iswim531 and Submarine112 the same user? Same name pattern and theme. Same interest for this image which is finally just one more copyvio: https://www.musikmakarna.se/sites/default/files/styles/content_image/public/roomie_2_1.png

Can you take a look, please?

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 09:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jcb: The subject user's one remaining upload has been deleted as a copyvio (it was uploaded after you blocked said user for uploading copyvios).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Please rename File:Mixtilinear Circle definition.png now

This file descrives Mixtrinear Incircle, NOT Mixtrinear circle. See Mathworld — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2001:2D8:E138:6035:0:0:341B:70AC (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done but please have more patience in future; move requests usually get fairly prompt attention—especially when the reason is backed up with a reference link, as you did in this case. At any rate it’s not a matter requiring administrator attention unless the file is protected. Thank you.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Websterdead

Please take a look at that. This is after I request deletion of copyright violated pictures uploaded by this user. Also I think he may be sock puppet (request to checkuser added) -- -- Jakubhal 19:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked indefinitely by Odder. --jdx Re: 21:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

not-deleted file

Shouldn't File:Olivia de Havilland in Gone with the Wind trailer 2.jpg have been deleted IAW Commons:Deletion requests/File:Olivia de Havilland in Gone with the Wind trailer 2.jpg? — fourthords | =Λ= | 01:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

It was deleted. Then undeleted. Search for the file name in this archive. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@Fourthords and World's Lamest Critic: The specific section is Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2013-06#File:Gone with the wind Leigh and Howard.jpg. The restoration was not documented by @Fastily in the usual places.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

File swap

Could an admin please first move

File:Shakespeare's Sonnets (1923) Yale.djvu -> File:Romeo and Juliet (1917) Yale.djvu

and then move

File:Sonnets (1917) Yale.djvu -> File:Shakespeare's Sonnets (1923) Yale.djvu

The files were uploaded to the opposite titles, and I do not have privileges enough to correct the issue myself. These files are part of a series that we are adding to English Wikisource, so the precise titles matter. We cannot proceed at Wikisource until the file names are corrected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. Please check.--Jusjih (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion request for File:Tsunjinlogo.jpg

I submitted Deletion requests for File:Tsunjinlogo.jpg long time ago. But so far the requests haven't been processed yet although there has been no disagreement. So Administrators please deal with this request as soon as possible, thanks.--Whisper of the heart 03:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

DRs sometimes take a while to get to. This is not a matter that requires urgent administrator attention. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
2 months is obviously too long for "a while"...--Whisper of the heart 03:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Today I discovered, that some of my deletion requests are open since October. Taivo (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Gbawden (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Korean needed

Can someone check Special:ListFiles/땅콩잼. Some look like adverts, but I can't read them. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Can't read them either, but what I can gather: Most contain the name "PAYCO" (in Latin letters) and are used in Korean Wikipedia's article ko:페이코 which, per Google Translate, seems to be about a Korean payment service of that name (PAYCO). That article (in translation) looks a bit over-detailed and reads more like a manual for the service than an encyclopedic article, IMHO, but I'm not at all familiar with Korean Wikipedia... Gestumblindi (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The Korean article easily reads like corporate spam, and the contents were likely created by an employee for Payco. I'd suggest deleting all the files under COM:CSD#G10 except for File:1-1 PAYCO Red.jpg, which is too simple for copyright and because Payco is notable (a search in Korean yields over 15,000 results). It is—according to the Korean article—one of the top four most used mobile payment services in Korea, along with KakaoPay (which happens to be the one I use). ℯxplicit 04:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete my UPLOADS!

HI,

PLEASE DELETE THESE UPLOADS OF ME THAT I LISTED BELOW:

THANKS! --Alireza.Azamifar (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Problematic uploads

Could someone please have a look at the contributions of User:Jakeirapeak? They seem a bit strange, and may not be the user's own work. Some of them have been replacing older files with different versions. --Ranveig (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done - uploads nuked. Эlcobbola talk 14:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Polygon v (talk · contribs)

Hello.This user uses a source and a license that does not fit the photos he uploads.Please check.Thanks ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a proposal to remove a couple of interwiki links from COM:BP which were added in 2015 without supporting consensus/discussion, refer to Commons talk:Blocking policy.

The Wikipedia policies/guidelines linked are likely to add technical complexity or misleading definitions for the norms that have been established over many years for Commons. Where definitions are needed, these should probably be created as additional rubric within Commons guidelines or be raised as community proposals if significant changes are inherited or implied, especially considering the continuing evolution of Wikipedia policies for blocks and sanctions related to harassment. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete old version File:Orthodox Slavs-ar.png

Hello, can you please delete (20:59, 5 April 2019) version of File:Orthodox Slavs-ar.png, as it contain wrong labels? It translated through Arabic Wikipedia Graphics Lab. Thanks --Alaa :)..! 19:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Taivo (talk) 07:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Cloud SVG icons

I moved Category:SVG cloud icons to Category:Cloud SVG icons but I made a mistake. Please could someone swap them back? Thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 06:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The same for Category:People SVG icons--Pierpao.lo (listening) 06:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I notice that the description of File:MapofEmergingUSMegaregions.png says that it was created by the Regional Plan Association, and the original uploaded version of the image had a notice, "(copyright) 2008 by Regional Plan Association", but the image was claimed as "own work" by user IrvingPINYC, without any information on how they held any right to license the image. The copyright notice was later removed from the image by another user. - Donald Albury (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: Don't worry, we have permission on file.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

FlickreviewR 2

Did someone shutoff FlickreviewR 2? It hasn't done anything in 18 hours (21:56, 6 April 2019 UTC), when it normally seems to be constantly running. In case no one shut it off, I'm pinging the owner @Zhuyifei1999: . --Elisfkc (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Elisfkc: He hasn't edited in 17 hours.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I got to 18 hours, but still, the bot hasn't moved in a while. --Elisfkc (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
The host tools-sgeexec-0928 was unresponsive. I rebooted that host and resubmitted the job. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: Awesome, glad we resolved this.
Resolved
--Elisfkc (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Marcin Cichy.jpg

Could someone check whether that file is a local copy from the deleted photo from the title please? ~Cybularny Speak? 11:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cybularny: pl:Plik:Marcin_Cichy.jpeg is a downgraded version of File:Marcin Cichy.jpg (2,662 × 4,000 pixels) by the same uploader. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Rollback/big undo request

Would someone with rollback authority please undo the my recent changes copying files from Category:Residential areas in Sweden to Category:Aerial photographs of Sweden and Category:Aerial photographs by year. Thank you. Senator2029 05:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done More precisely, I have reverted all your changes done today between 6:34 and 6:54 CEST in File: namespace. --jdx Re: 05:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Undeletion for OTRS

Please undelete following files, OTRS is in progress (Ticket#2019030110005149) and I will care for it.

Thanks, --Stepro (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Stepro: I could not see a proper permission statement at ticket:2019030110005149. Are you sure about the ticket number? On a side note, OTRS undeletion requests are typically posted to COM:UDEL. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi 4nn1l2, yes, the number is correct and as I wrote OTRS is in progress and not finished. Are you sure COM:UDEL would be the right place for it? This is a request by a support team member for the ability to go on with OTRS, and nothing to discuss in Community. --Stepro (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Ticket:2019030110005149 is closed. The agent sent a response on 1 March 2019, but the customer has not replied yet. The customer should send a proper permission statement like the one at COM:ET, and then we can restore the files. What exactly are you going to process now? 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
What the heck ist the problem to give a support team member the possibility to do his work? I can read the ticket, and I know what is the status of it. I don't discuss the communication with the rightholders in public, because therefore the support team exists! --Stepro (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
And what is exactly that "work"? Do you want these files undeleted because a proper permission statement has been received? If so, then show us (OTRS agents) the permission statement, and I will undelete them promptly. Do you want to see the files to assess a claim? Then explain it, and I may restore them temporarily... 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I am an OTRS agent (since 2010 btw.). I feel very unrespected with that. I can't belive this and give up. --Stepro (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Resolvedbecause of unrespectful behavior --Stepro (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I’m all for blunt discourse and usually don’t side with people working on hurt feelings alone, but scare quotes to refer to an OTRS member’s work is uncalled for, especially when coming from an admin. @Stepro: please reconsider; if you want to file in a formal complaint against 4nn1l2 you’ll have my support, at least. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    A formal complaint for what exactly? For correctly stating that the permission on the ticket is invalid and that we would need a valid one? Or for not agreeing to undelete an image simply so another OTRS agent can look at it (which is unnecessary to do the current job when there isn't even a correct permission statement pending)? Seeing as you are neither an OTRS agent nor an admin you cannot see either side of this discussion and I suggest you don't attempt to throw people under the bus when you don't know the story. --Majora (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
It is ashaming that Commons admins hinder the work of the support team. But that is nothing new. There are several admins here that are too cocksure of themself. Chaddy (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually 1) this is not the better place for these requests, it's preferred to use COM:UNDEL; 2) OTRS agents shouldn't discuss here the validity of a ticket, in particular when it's not needed, there are other channels to do so. Yellow card to everyone :) Ruthven (msg) 13:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The remaining file from the same uploader appears in a PDF on the artist's site. File:2 a - Mario Adorf, Doppels. links.jpg should probably be deleted until the OTRS permission issues are cleared up. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

COM:DR nominations by Mvcg66b3r

Mvcg66b3r is a fairly new account (at least the account itself has only been editing since January 2019) whose primary focus seems to be to nominate files for deletion per COM:DR. While there's nothing wrong with this per se and I think the nominations are probably being made in good faith, some of them seem to show a slight misunderstanding about COM:FAIR and COM:TOO. For example, Commons:Deletion requests/File:KNCT CW12.png (one of Mvcg66b3r's earliest DRs) was most certainly licensed incorrectly, but it was also probably just as certainly too simple to be eligible for copyright protection; so, it was kept; Commons:Deletion requests/File:WLYH-TV 49.png, on the other hand, was deemed to complex to be kept and deleted. It's not uncommon for people to disagree over licensing which is why its good to hash things out at DR; however, there should be some effort made to avoid frivolous nominations as much as possible to avoid creating an extra burden on the Commons community.

This editor appears to edit in bursts; they nominate a bunch of files for deletion, take a break, and then come back at a latter date to nominate some more. Their latest bunch of DRs include Commons:Deletion requests/File:WOIO19.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:BYU tv.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kwbm wb31 harrison.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:MeTV - color.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:KNHLTV.png, all of which probably can be kept with some license tweaking instead of outright deletion. The reason given for deletion in "Commons:Deletion requests/File:KNHLTV.png" is particularly strange because there doesn't seem to be anything "fake" about this logo at all; it needs a proper license, but it doesn't seem fake. Some of the DRs like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mega-tv-logo.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Health Channel.png received no comment, and the files were subsequently deleted by an admin; others like Commons:Deletion requests/File:CW West Texas.png also received no comments, but are still open.

Anyway, I'm wondering if some admin/admins would mind going through all of these nominations and checking whether it's just a case of a file being licensed incorrectly or whether there is actually a need for a DR. Furthermore, perhaps someone might explain that while "Non-free logo; does not belong in Commons" is correct, things are sometimes a little more complex a non-free logo actually needs to be eligible for copyright in the first place. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

TP with notifications

Hi. I think the page User talk:KHALED WALEED Sulaiman, full of notifications, lacks a warning. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@E4024: I see multiple warnings there.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Have they served anything? --E4024 (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
A red card may be in their future if they continue uploading copyvios.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done I blocked the user for a month. All remaining uploads are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Bot Reports

Hi, can someone help with this bot https://tools.wmflabs.org/videoconvert/index.php when trying tp upload it says "internal server error". Thanks Nettersteal (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

If anyone's asking if I contacted the operator,I did. He's been offline since last year. 41.114.18.209 08:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

We do not have access to videoconvert, therfore only the maintainers @Lokal Profil and Prolineserver: can help you. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like the Stretch-migration didn't go as painfree as expected. I'll ping Prolineserver off wiki to see if the issue can be solved. /Lokal_Profil 10:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
/Lokal That would be appreciated, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nettersteal (talk • contribs) 14:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Still waiting... Nettersteal (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Weard text

Hello, could you please look at Category:Kathryn Bakerː someone added a weard text, as if WikiMedia Commons is a kind of LinkedIn. I don't know how to handle this. JopkeB (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Cleaned --4nn1l2 (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Biosynthese cantharidine.gif

Hello, can some admin delete this file (close the deletion request)? It has been opened more than a month ago! Thanks in advance, Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. Materialscientist (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Question

Can this be considered a problematic edit? If so does it require some sanction? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Reverted. --A.Savin 01:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Degradação d.jpg

Hello, can someone delete the two files, which are mentioned in this deletion request & then close the request? It has been opened for 9 days now and everybody agrees with deletion! Best regards, Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done This page is for urgent administrator attention, not ordinary DRs in the backlog. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Ice Cream (Pixabay-563808).jpg

I have uploaded the above file from Pixabay I have given the license CC0 but I am not sure about the file's license due to website's new policy. So, any Admin or LW please review the file.--√Tæ√ 16:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: kept. --Achim (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Mass message for WLE Germany

Can someone please send a mass message for WLE Germany.
The text for the message is here: User:Blech/WLE2019Rundschreiben
The list of users to send is here: User:Blech/WLENamen17und18
Discussion about the message on dewiki: de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Wiki Loves Earth 2019/Deutschland/Organisation
Thanks a lot. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: Signatur <-- Is unclear. What to add instead of signature? --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh, forgot this. Just add: <small>--[[User:GPSLeo|GPSLeo]] ([[User talk:GPSLeo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17 April 2019</small> --GPSLeo (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Picture is of the wrong person

File:Kris Lemche.jpg is not Kris Lemche. It is Tim Rozon; see File:Tim Rozon.jpg, which was apparently verified through OTRS. I nominated the Lemche image for deletion, but I'm hoping that maybe an admin can just delete file:Kris Lemche.jpg as misleading. I can't really find an appropriate CSD rationale, but it seem like an obvious enough problem. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I think the quality of File:Kris Lemche.jpg is better than that of File:Tim Rozon.jpg. One option is to remove File:Kris Lemche.jpg from various Wikipedia articles and then just rename it and keep it on Commons. What do you think? 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
File:Kris Lemche.jpg has the top of someone's head in the bottom left corner, and someone's arm is sticking out from the far left. Those could be easily cropped out, but then you'd be left with almost the exact same image as File:Tim Rozon.jpg. Personally, I'd just delete the Lemche image, but anything that clears up the confusion works for me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Black hole confusion

The file File:Central black hole of M87.tif which was uploaded by User:FallK38 is not the image from the source tif [10]. It has been heavily smoothed. I have uploaded the correct tiff at File:Black hole - Messier 87.tif (the JPG version is File:Black hole - Messier 87.jpg which is currently being reviewed at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Black hole - Messier 87.jpg. @BevinKacon, Yann, and Túrelio: I see now Túrelio deleted the correct tiff (File:Black hole, Messier 87, Eso1907a.tif) as a "duplicate" of the smoothed one. I guess they assumed that it was a correct copy of the source. But it isn't. People are getting confused and creating derivative works of this home-made smoothed black hole rather than the correct one which has some noise if you pixel peep it. What should we do? I think the smoothed one should be renamed to include "smoothed" or "photoshopped" in its filename so people are aware it is not the original from ESO, and the description amended to indicate it has been Photoshopped to be as smooth as a supermodel on a glossy magazine. We should be using the correct versions. -- Colin (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Shall I undelete File:Black hole, Messier 87, Eso1907a.tif? --Túrelio (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Maybe this explains the problem. ;-) --Túrelio (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 Comment I had already uploaded the original versions from ESO website. Why uploading duplicates, I don't understand? Regards, Yann (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Yann, I don't don't see where you uploaded any TIF, only a JPG from ESO, which was not optimally compressed, and not the best quality we can get from the TIF. We're not discussing the JPG here.
I see that since my post, User:Huntster has overwritten the smoothed File:Central black hole of M87.tif with the same TIF from ESO I uploaded to File:Black hole - Messier 87.tif. Yann asks why upload duplicates -- well it wasn't a duplicate when I uploaded it, but Huntster's upload COM:OVERWRITEing the smoothed one did create a duplicate. Huntster's comment was "while ESO previously hosted a 183 Mb file, this has been replaced with the far-less-bloated version currently on the site." which suggests the highly smoothed one did come from ESO but the new version replaced it at ESO. If that is the case then we are OK provided nobody reverts that overwrite, and nobody wants the smoothed one for some reason (BevinKacon at FPC seemed to prefer the smoothed one). Does Hunster know anything more about the reason for the change of file? The smooth file, which Hunster describes as "bloated" is a 16-bit tif and I suspect has had a Gaussian blur applied to smooth out the noise. I can reduce its size from 187MB to 96MB with better (lossless) compression but a 16-bit file is always going to be larger than 8-bit. If the 16-bit file came from ESA then perhaps there really is merit in us hosting that one with its own filename. -- Colin (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Do what you want, but I fail to see a point in redistributing what is essentially the same file but better optimized for our purposes of public outreach, which even ESO seemed to recognize when they removed the 183 Mb version from their site in favour of the 34 Mb version. If users need such big data for research purposes, they aren't going to be using a public relations piece, they will be obtaining the raw material. There is simply no reason for this level of redundancy. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I uploaded File:Black hole, Messier 87, Eso1907a.tif (2 original versions from ESO), now deleted. And the JPEG I uploaded is also the original file from ESO. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I cropped the ESO 183MB tif file, and linked the crop for convience, I did not download the Commons version. The 183MB version has no signs of dithering or compression, all other versions do. As User:Huntster's overwrite of File:Central black hole of M87.tif is noticeably worse, it's against COM:OVERWRITE.

Colin is confused, as ESO swapped the 180MB with a compressed version later, it hasn't been "smoothed", it's the original uncompressed version.

Here is lossless PNG and lossless WEBP from the 180MB version.--BevinKacon (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Black hole - Messier 87 crop max res.webp got deformation from the black hole gravity. ;oD Yann (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
*facepalm* Yes, because we need more versions of the exact same thing. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Huntster, your argument about which versions commons should host doesn't work for Commons. We don't choose which version. We are an educational repository, not a publisher, so we have no "purposes of public outreach". They aren't "essentially the same file", which you'd see if you looked at them closely. BevinKacon claims I'm confused but without evidence we only have speculation. The two possibilities are:
  1. The 180MB 16-bit TIFF which appears smooth is the "original" and best master copy, and the 35MB 8-bit TIFF is a poor-quality 8-bit conversion with visible dithering. Going from 16-bit master to 8-bit copy seems likely. However if this is the case then ESO are really rubbish at 8-bit conversion because Photoshop does a much better job with a nice smooth result in 8-bit. Btw the tif uses lossless-compression so that isn't a factor. Another factor against this option is that digital images are never as smooth as this. Getting an image from an object millions of light-years away is going to have noise in it. A smooth image could only result from either (a) source data at lower resolution with smooth interpolation to generate a higher resolution image or (b) someone has applied a Gaussian blur to the noisy image to make it look perfect. See this FAQ entry.
  2. The 35MB 8-bit TIFF is the best version. The visible pixels at magnification are not "dithering" but "noise" inherent in the image capture process. Perhaps 16-bit smooth version was removed from ESO because it is not realistic.

I think we're going to need some evidence (link, email) to find out what is the case. -- Colin (talk)

This message above doesn't match what the image is about. This is a computer reconstruction based on petabytes of data taken by many different telescopes. And taken at 1.3 mm wavelength, with is not visible light, but microwaves (see File:EM spectrumrevised.png). That is the difficulty of the whole story. See Event Horizon Telescope for the details. So it is not a digital image as usually understood. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm aware the entire image is computer generated (as are CT and MRI) and I suspect none of us here really understand how it is formed. The large-smooth one just looks too perfectly smooth and blurred, like the simulation mentioned here. The file description says "This image is the average of three different imaging methods after convolving each with a circular Gaussian kernel to give matched resolutions" which perhaps does indicate a mathematical blur rather than an algorithm that generates individual pixels (which would be noisy). I sent ESO an email, but I suspect they have more important things right now than a query from Commons. I'm happy for either possibility to be true, but if the large smooth one is the correct original then we've got some reverting and fixing up to do, and as far as I'm concerned, all the "noisy" ones from ESO can go in the digital bin -- we can do a better 16>8 bit conversion than that. -- Colin (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I have corresponded with a mathematician friend who helped explain that the soft smooth (noise-free) image is indeed a possible output from the algorithm used. When the researcher's said it was not possible to achieve a "sharp" image, they did not mean it would be noisy but rather that it would be blurred like an out-of-focus lens produces with a camera. So we should indeed expect a high-resolution image with smooth tonal blur, best captured by a 16-bit tif. I have also exchanged a couple of emails with ESO and they confirmed that a 16-bit image was first uploaded but they discovered the automatic conversion to 8-bit JPG created some artefacts. So they replaced it with an 8-bit one. I explained that the 16-bit one was much higher quality and a shame to not be available on their website. In reply they have put back the 16-bit version to their website. It isn't totally identical to the one first uploaded to Commons but the difference appears to be a minor one with the metadata. Note that this file is uncompressed so that makes it especially large. So I plan to:

  1. Upload the new 16-bit file from ESO to File:Central black hole of M87.tif.
  2. I shall then immediately overwrite that with a file created by loading the tif into Photoshop 2019 and saving with ZIP (Adobe Deflate) lossless compression. This reduces the size from 187,760KB to 96,145KB. There are minor alterations to the EXIF due to the way that Photoshop saves the metadata.
  3. Upload a new version of File:Black hole - Messier 87.jpg derived from the high-quality tif, reduced to 8-bit tif with dithering, and then saved with highest quality level 12 with Photoshop 2019.

The dithering used by Photoshop does not produce the noisy image we previously saw, and helps prevent banding appearing in the tonal graduations on an 8-bit image. I don't know if there is any value in Commons having an 8-bit tif version of this (it is smaller). If so I could upload to File:Central black hole of M87-8-bit.tif -- Colin (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Colin could you ask ESO to release a public statement on the difference between the 34MB & 183MB versions? Just so it's official.

See below meta data differences, which show the 34MB version is the 183MB saved at a later date, in a 1 hour different time zone.

--BevinKacon (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I was pleased that ESO responded so quickly to my email, since I thought they would be busy with more important things than the pixel-peepers on Commons. The email correspondence is paraphrased above, which explains why the 16-bit version was first published, then replaced by 8-bit, then a 16-bit file restored. We aren't just speculating on the chronology, but have an explanation. I don't really see any reason why anyone might doubt what I've relayed to you that might require someone from ESO making an "official" public statement on a website. They really do have better things to do (like enjoy an Easter break). Lets just all be happy that the confusion over which image is best/original has been resolved and Commons has a free high-quality 16-bit image to share. -- Colin (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Deleted contributions

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Peridic_system_showcase.jpg&action=history shows obnoxious ru.Wikipedian deletionism, and—from my experience—not all Commons sysops fend it off. It would not be correct to threaten the user with sanctions for one such episode since April, 2016 (that is, during three years), hence more instances should be searched for. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to threaten users. You can have a friendly talk with them and tell them redirects, especially old ones, should not be deleted in general. Having said that, here is a list of redirects deleted by the request of User:1234qwer1234qwer4. Some of the deletions are justified, whereas the others are not. You may find the appropriate ones for the talk yourself:
4nn1l2 (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio deletions are not so speedy

Hello.
First of all, they are nowadays not so speedy. Commons needs more sysops working with Copyright violations – how many of them even watch the category? It is cluttered with files and postings at the talk page lie at rest for weeks.

Secondly, Commons is presently too tolerant to abusive tagging with {{Copyvio}} where a (mass) regular deletion request is clearly more appropriate. When the backlog is full of non-obvious cases needing a sort of investigation, the processing becomes slower and the queue grows further. Where are such veterans of the ThatBPengineer campaign as Jcb, Storkk, and 1989? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I just opened 10 files from this category, the tags were appropriate and I deleted the 10 files. If you feel that some files are non-obvious, then click on the link "convert to DR", but do it only for cases that are not really obvious, otherwise it amounts to cluttering uselessly the DR backlog. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • In addition to what Christian Ferrer advised, as far as I can see the oldest requests in the category were added few days ago. It's not dramatic to have a hundred files in the category, as long as the number is mostly stable: indeed, I'd say it's good to have a buffer so that it's easy to find something to do for the admins who are not here 24h and just want to contribute a few minutes when they have some. Nemo 15:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree that Commons should delay deletion of copyvio to make some sysops feel comfortably. Why can’t they undelete or rename files? Disappointed to see such proposal posted on a noticeboard – blatant copyvio has too high demoralizing potential to play such games with it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This is nonsense, as usual. It doesn't really matter if a few dozen copyvios are not deleted for a few days. We have hundreds of copyright violations lying here for years, and nobody cares... Yann (talk) 11:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
    “… as usual”? Yes, grab more rope, Yann. As for albums, I’m not an expert on copyright. My point is not “to cleanse Commons of all this copyvio”, it is something else. Rapid destruction of copyvio galleries (e.g. in Wikipedia) based on Commons uploads shows that Wikimedia respects intellectual property, shows to all Internet. Contrary, such galleries hanging for days—with links to these potentially spreading in social networks—may be quite detrimental for Wikimedia’s reputation and encourage similar behaviour. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

There was some (temporary?) improvement, but timing is still not good. Rapid deletion of copyvio is the front line of defence against copyviomans and authorship forgers. One of the most important tools of peer pressure. It is not the same as “speedy” deletion in general – some stuff truly may wait for weeks, such as {{Duplicate}}. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Photos Nominated for Speedy Deletion

Hi. I have nominated a number of photos that I have uploaded . They are not in any article . Please delete theam asap. Thanks. Gharouni (talk) 10:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I will take care of this. I have already responded to Gharouni at my talk page: Special:Diff/347002626. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
4nn1l2 Please ASAP. Thanks. Gharouni (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Please refer to my talk page and keep the discussion there. Thanks. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 Comment DRs not valid, closed. Yann (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Gharouni explained in my talk page that he’d like the geolocation exif expunged as the exact apartment these photos were taken can be detected. I advised him to reupload these photos with altered geolocation data and then to ask for revdel of the original versions. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Commons talk:Category scheme People

Would an admin consider closing this discussion at Commons talk:Category scheme People? I think a month has been long enough for discussion but an administrator should review it because the result would be a lot of empty categories for deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Taivo (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Cross-upload from Thai Wikipedia

Hello, I'm Horus from Thai Wikipedia. Recently there was a consensus to disable uploading to Thai Wikipedia and we have detected a case where a person upload non-free images to Wikimedia Commons e.g. [11]. I would like to notify the people involved for potential abuse in the future. --Horus (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Cleaned. Hi Horus, thanks for notifying us. That will be good if you set up a tracking page for uploads from the Thai Wikipedia, and patrol the listed files regularly with the help of Thai Wikipedians. User:OgreBot/fawiki is an exmple for the Persian Wikipedia. Please let me know if you need help creating such pages. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Amelia hambrook.jpg

IPs, obviously the uploader (in deWikipedia blocked), removes allways the tag for deleting. The picture is a obviously copy vio. --Brotfried (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done IP blocked, user warned, file deleted. Yann (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Hana/Kana

Hi, I've added {{Rename}} to these two files of 2016, requesting to change the files' names from "Kana" to "Hana" (diff, diff). My reasoning is that they are photographs of ja:松本花奈 (まつもと はな; Hana Matsumoto) per Tokyo International Film Festival's official website [12] and the sources of the files [13] [14]; her name is spelled Hana (はな), not Kana (かな), per her official website [15] as well as third-party reliable sources such as Mainichi Shimbun [16] and An An [17]. It is likely that the original uploader on Flickr (Dick Thomas Johnson) misspelled the name, but Aldnonymous rejected my requests, stating that "The name spelled 'Kana' not 'Hana'" (diff, diff). I still think the files' names should be changed from "Kana" to "Hana". To make matters worse, other editors at the Wikidata and the non-Japanese Wikipedia have repeatedly added the image to the article of the different person ja:松本華奈 (まつもと かな; Kana Matsumoto), who retired circa 2010. Could someone help fix this problem? Thanks, 153.203.14.170 07:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Moved. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
No. I did read your request 花奈 (Kana) is can be read in Chinese and Japanese as Huanai and Kana, you didn't add はな (Hana or flower) so I trust the original moonrunes instead. Please add the two version of writing system next time so I can read it clearly.--AldnonymousBicara? 08:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Please undelete File:Renee powell recent.jpg

I will add the OTRS permissions for it once it's undeleted (I'm an OTRS permissions volunteer). See here for details. Thanks! ···日本穣Talk to Nihonjoe 17:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Ping Jcb as they deleted it. ···日本穣Talk to Nihonjoe 17:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Next time, please post undeletion requests to COM:UDEL. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nihonjoe: I am reverting your approval, please be more careful in the future. I will leave a message in the ticket with more information. Jcb (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jcb: What do you mean "be more careful in the future"? The permissions received are acceptable, and I don't see a message from you on either ticket (for some reason you merged a ticket with one customer email into one with another customer email). Please stop being so cryptic. ···日本穣Talk to Nihonjoe 21:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok, you accepted a statement from the depicted person in which they state to be the author, while you can read in the ticket itself who the real photographer is. If you can't distinguish between an author and a depicted person, please make sure that you learn before you handle any more ticket. Of course I merged the tickets, they are about the same file. You can see that @Krd: never accepted the permission. Apparently they were trying again, hoping for a weak spot, which they found. Jcb (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) @Jcb: Thank you for explaining. When I read it, I must have missed that part. Reading it again now, I see nowhere where it states who actually took the photo (other than the two claims that the subject is the sole owner of the copyright). Next time, be more specific, please. Also, please stop with the backhanded comments. We're all on the same team here. ···日本穣Talk to Nihonjoe 21:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
It should be obvious that the depicted person is not the photographer, as an OTRS agent you are in place to question such a claim, not to accept it criticlessly. As I already wrote in the ticket, the name of the photographer is in record 5. Jcb (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I see that you admitted in the meantime in the ticket that you made a mistake. I have redeleted the file. It can be undeleted if we receive a valid permission. Jcb (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I never claimed the depicted person was the photographer (though it is technically possible using a shutter remote), so please stop insinuating obviously false information about me. As I wrote before: we are all on the same team. ···日本穣Talk to Nihonjoe 21:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sylvie lemarchand.jpg

The latest comment there makes me think that a quick closure may be in order – possibly with a "delete" outcome. Asking here for uninvolved opinions. De728631 (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I deleted it. Reasonable request by the uploader who appears to also be the person in the photo (which may actually cause copyright issues anyways). I'm fine deleting such things if the person is reasonable and it doesn't appear that the image is in use anywhere. --Majora (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • If the reasons mentioned (not really stated) are genuine, then I too favour deletion, but it isn’t easy to do so after the uploader (or indeed someone claiming to be the uploader) used such language as:
  • «Obviously it's me who »(…) — nothing obvious, though as we know well how online impersonation happens, even for the most frivilous goals (a.k.a. for teh lulz)
  • «there is no need for a 3000 year debate»
  • «In case you do not agree, I would be obliged to file a complaint»
  • «A license is never irrevocable»
  • and the complaint at User talk:Túrelio.
We should presume that the mentioned danger is real, although De728631’s suggested solution seemed a much better course of action than deletion. And, of course, the web never forgets and this user should be made aware that any reuse of this image in random websites is outside Common’s control. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 04:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
We have a long history of doing courtesy deletions if need be and our guideline allows it (linked to in the DR closure as well). "Used such language" makes it sound like the person was swearing and threatening to take us all to court. They were not. I'd really appreciate it if you did not blow this out of proportion when we do such deletions all the time for less reasoning than given. The image has additional copyright issues involved, again as already stated, and De728631's suggestion wasn't going to solve those. Lets move on please. --Majora (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Malfunctioning video player on mobile phone

I use mobile phone to watch movie on Commons, but I can't watch video, only hear sound. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.221.158.102 (talk) 07:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Which movie, browser, and OS?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Picture Nominated for Speedy Deletion

Hi!. I have uploaded a map I have fully created myself but still, I wasn't sure if it is free of all potential copyright risks. Therefore, I would wish this file to be deleted as soon as possible. I could confirm based on my best knowledge that his file had not been shared within any existing wiki pages so far except my private collection of uploads.

The image is File:West Coast Star Island Map.jpg

Please help me to delete it as soon as possible. Many thanks!

Kindest Regard. Moskovescasc (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Deleted per COM:CSD#G7. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Schemazeichnung_haut.svg

I wrongfully reverted to an older version.(diff) Can this be undone by an admin? --Grim (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, Grim, I've done what I think you meant; the current image is also the image uploaded at 21:11 on 3 May 2019. Please review the history to confirm that it's correct. If I misunderstood, please specify the date and time of upload for the version that should be current, since that way someone can be sure to get the right version. Curious, though: can't you revert? You reverted one upload (your own), so I suspect that you can make a second revert yourself. Nyttend (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello Nyttend. Thank you, Sir. You got the right Version. And yes, I can revert myself. However, I was looking for an administrative hiding of my revert in the history. (If that's even possible) Wich might be beneficial in a File that is well used in de.wiki (3k views per day). --Grim (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I've deleted your latest edit and the one I made. Again, please examine the page to ensure that I did the right thing. Nyttend (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Dear Nyttend, you absolutely did. Looks good. Thank you very much! Enjoy the weekend! --Grim (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Sergio Amoni pictures

I just signed up and I have downloaded my personal pictures that do not infringe any copyright or contain any kind of illegal or abusive contents. Now I have received a message from Patrick Rogel that is requesting the deletion of my personal and homework pictures, if this is the case delete immediately also my entire profile so I am not going to waste other time with this website.

Sergio Amoni — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergioamoni1958 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I replied to your comment at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sergioamoni1958. Please keep this discussion centralised at that other page. De728631 (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done No contribution on any Wikimedia project, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing needed

Please review Polygon v's uploads per ticket:2019040610004237; it says that the licenses and sources are not proper. I am not sure about that what I should answer, your help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! Bencemac (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao recent food uploads

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This user imported a lot food-related photos from Flickr, where a lot of them are Commons:Derivative works from commercial packaging. I reviewed ~ 600 recent uploads and need help with further reviewing. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

See also COM:ANU#Ser Amantio di Nicolao.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Jeff G. this is often considered forum shopping. How many board did you want to drag this user? It's better to keep discussion in one place, please! T CellsTalk 16:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reposição de ficheiros deletados

Saudações. Há cerca de um mês, eu tive todas as minhas contribuições deletadas pelo usuário Jcb sob a alegação de violação de direitos autorais, o que incluía fotografias tiradas e licenciadas por mim mesmo, brasões e bandeiras sobre domínio público, mapas baseados em outros já existentes aqui, imagens com formas geométricas ou textuais simples, entre outros. Questionado sob o porque fez isso, ele disse que foi por causa desse arquivo, mas não explicou por que ignorou a origem de todos os outros e usou a mesma lógica inclusive em arquivos que eu mesmo havia fotografado/produzido ([18]).

Logicamente eu pedi a reposição das imagens em COM:UDR, mas após três tentativas, só consegui chegar a um consenso para eliminar definitivamente arquivos que vieram de outros colaboradores mas não tinham sua origem em COM:OTRS, e na última fui completamente ignorado (1ª, 2ª, 3ª). Como eu só consigo me comunicar em português, também já cheguei a pedir ajuda para dois administradores que falam o meu idioma e entendem melhor os processos aqui no Commons, mas não tive retorno (1, 2). Agora, eu estou aqui solicitando a vocês administradores alguma solução. Faço minhas colaborações aqui e na Wikipédia lusófona há pelo menos 8 anos e está mais do que óbvio que há um erro terrível aqui. João Justiceiro (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Your UDR has been declined several times, please stop repeating your request. Jcb (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Por que em vez de pedir para eu parar de pedir a reposição dos meus arquivos você não explica direito por que os deletou? Até agora você não falou. João Justiceiro (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, the user was asked to make clear, simple, separate requests rather than complex, combined ones. However, IMO, it would be better if they are handled by a Portuguese speaking admin. Ankry (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Já fiz ambos, e em ambos fui ignorado. João Justiceiro (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
This is volunteer-operated service. Ankry (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Eu tenho plena consciência disso. São 8 anos me voluntariando e de repente alguém joga meu trabalho no lixo sem dar explicações. João Justiceiro (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

constant harrasment by user E4024

This user (User:E4024) keeps listing my contributions for deletion, repeatedly and with the same arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markfree123 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done -- if someone nominates several of your images for deletion, this alone isn't harassment. The RfD's are perfectly legitimate, most have already been closed as deleted. I have taken a look at some deleted pics, they look like a home porn without any additional educational content to what we already have here. That is, the files are out of Commons' scope. So nothing wrong here -- if you don't like to see your files nominated for deleion, simply do not upload out-of-scope content. --A.Savin 00:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much, good admin. I came here just now, to ask help to close a DR, for the first time I do something like that... and I see my name above. Anyhow, the DR for which I would ask help is Commons:Deletion requests/File:発達した乳房.png, where I may have contributed to an unnecessary chat. Please someone close it either way, keep or delete, delete or keep. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
OK @E4024: closed and deleted. Strakhov (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Trace of Soul 2019

Hello. I am happy to inform you that Trace of Soul 2019 - a public photography competition, will be held this year too. We are asking your help to do update of Campaign:tos-rs (just update 2018 to 2019). Thanks, --Bosko23 (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Updated. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

COM:ERRORS

Do we have any way of reporting Main Page errors here at Commons? I couldn't find anything comparable to en:WP:ERRORS, which is dedicated to reporting errors at en:Main Page. (This came to mind after I found a typo at Template:Motd/2019-05-08 (en), which is on the Main Page now.) Instead of responding here, please visit Talk:Main Page#COM:ERRORS. Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Depends on the type of error. If it's content error, the respective discussion page is suitable. If it's a software error, you can report it to Phabricator if you want, but otherwise Village Pump is a good place too. --MB-one (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

It says "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license." but I can't see anything on their website[19] suggesting this. What have I missed? Doug Weller (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how the uploader decided to put it under a CC license, but the logo is below TOO anyways. --MB-one (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
By US standards, certainly, but I wouldn't bet my house on that under UK law if someone decided to put it to the test. See Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_Kingdom, Commons:Deletion_requests/Two_British_logos. -- Begoon 10:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Block, semi-protection, and (maybe) Checkuser needed

Could an admin take care of the trans-phobic troll on my talk page? Spill-over from an issue in en.wiki. I've temporarily turned off email notifications from Commons, but semi-protection for a few days would be nice too. I assume it's a throw-away account, but maybe a CU wants to check/block the IP. I guess technically it's a death threat, but it's an empty one so I don't care if that angle is pursued or not. Thanks in advance. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Vandal blocked, user talk semi-protected. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: Thanks! --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

พีรชัย วงษ์ชาลี

I believe พีรชัย วงษ์ชาลี (talk · contribs) should be blocked and have all his uploaded files deleted, because almost all the files are not likely his own work. --Wedjet (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

 Comment File:ต้นจามจุรี ต้นไม้ประจำโรงเรียนมัญจาศึกษา.jpg is a duplicate of File:Starr 031209-0052 Samanea saman.jpg. File:ธงประจำโรงเรียนมัญจาศึกษา.jpg is PD-shape, File:สถานที่ในโรงเรียนมัญจาศึกษา.png is likely PD-text. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Duplicate dealt with. Agreed (obviously). Meh, close enough, PD-text is fine. Dealing with the rest of the uploads now. --Majora (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit war at File:BlankMap-World-Microstates.svg

Not sure if this is the place to post (if not, please advise of the correct platform), but there's a long-standing edit war at File:BlankMap-World-Microstates.svg, and it appears that both of the warring editors Cherkash and Giorgi Balakhadze insist that they are correct and neither are willing to talk it through on a talk page.   ~ Newfitz Yo! 04:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Both users warned. Should be blocked if they continue. Alternative versions should be uploaded as a new file. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 Comment I strongly support not to edit-war! I try not to play in their game, but tell me how to stop such users?! Discussions and explanations are pointless, there are clear rules (COM:OVERWRITE) about overwriting but some don't want to follow them. I am cartographer and I know what means trivial edit, adding disputed territories as micro-states is not trivial in any condition. And please, both Newfraferz87 or Yann revert the map to the original version, current version is a violation of OVERWRITE rule, and that violation caused all those reverts. I'll be waiting four your action...
p.s. the user did the same edit in another long-standing (for decades) version of the file:BlankMap-World.svg, where he change even instructions page, without any discussion.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 17:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@Giorgi Balakhadze: Can you please explain what was your change (21:49, 16 April 2019) compared to previous version? And what are the differences in Cherkash's version (11:11, 11 February 2019)? Regards, Yann (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: in his edit on (11:11, 11 February 2019) the user added disputed or conflict regions like: DNR, LNR, Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabagh, Abkhazia, Transnistria, North Cyprus, South Ossetia/Tskhinvali Region. None of them are micro-states, their addition is misleading (due to title), and it is violation of overwrite rule.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 17:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Ah OK, I see that now, so I reverted to the previous version. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: Thank you. Regards, --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 17:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: I've explained the reason for the changes on the Talk page for the image in question (as well as in my edit summaries as I went). To summarize for your convenience, the main reason is that this file is a technical illustration of the capabilities of the the primary image (File:BlankMap-World.svg). As such, its primary purpose is to serve as an illustration in the instructions on how to use/modify that primary image when creating its derivatives. And so it should be kept in sync with that primary image. Keeping these two images in sync is exactly what I've done. Cherkash (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Cherkash: Well, not exactly. You also added disputed territories which are not Microstates, so your version should be uploaded as a separate file. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Not so, @Yann: all these territories have been part of the hidden information in the main blank-map file for quite a while. As I explained above, they have been made unhidden in the file in question in order to show these hidden capabilities of SVG code of the main file – this was just coincidental to syncing the "microstate" file to the main file. Cherkash (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Cherkash: Hidden or not present doesn't matter in this case. Anyway, you have to get a consensus before uploading a new version of this file. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: Not sure I said it very clearly. Let me try again. This page (along with its translation) is the only place where this image is meaningfully used as an illustration (you can verify this via Global Usage: everything else is just linkages or user pages). And if you read that section where it's used, it should hopefully be clear what I meant when I said that this file is used as a technical illustration only. So if the name is confusing (e.g. if the term "microstate" is ambiguous), it could be changed. But I doubt it makes sense to upload yet another file as an illustration, as it would leave this image hanging without any remaining purpose. Cherkash (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I request help please

Hello there - A user named Patrick Rogel under false pretences tagged these following images for deletion:

I later confronted the person and he said as quote: " Please wait an Administrator closes this request. If you are in a hurry you should ask one of your choice to do it."

These images, especially here in South Africa, don't actually have serious copyright licenses and are suitable for re-use. You can see here here and here. The posters don't hold copyright, but the photos of the posters do. Can one of you please sort this out. Thanks in advance. Lefcentreright (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Lefcentreright: The deletion requests are very well justified. You need the permission from the poster publisher to upload them to Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Lefcentreright: I agree with Patrick and Yann.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Lefcentreright: Wikimedia Commons is different from a newspaper. Although it is possible, that the use of these photographs is permitted for journalistic purposes under ZA laws, it doesn't mean, no copyrights apply at all and we can host it under a Creative Commons license. I therefore had to delete the images. --MB-one (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker down?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T223106

Hi, Is the bot down? There are many requests waiting, and the last edit was on 06:30, 2 May 2019. Regards, Yann (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Magnus Manske, Magog the Ogre, and Steinsplitter: Could you look into this? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Move request

Could someone move Commons talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/ぽのこ to Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/ぽのこ? Thanks, 153.229.239.14 22:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. --A.Savin 16:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Cross-wiki stalking

User:Fram, who is involved in an Arbcom against me on the English-Speaking Wikipedia, has crossed over and started mass-nominating images of mine (cinema props typical of what we have at Category:Film props and its subcategories). Fram claims to have noticed me putting them up on en:Middle-earth weapons and armour, an article on which he had never contributed before, and somehow helpfully come to help Commons fend off copyright violations; I see Fram's interloping as wiki-stalking and harassment. I request Fram that be asked to stay away from me, and vigilance against a possible influx of similar targeted and coordinated edits. Rama (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Everything that needs to be said can be found at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sauron helmet-P5120122-white.jpg. Rama is the subject of an ArbCom case at enwiki, and I looked at his editing history on enwiki to see if he had posted anything about it (as his comments on it are rather sparse and have been debunked). Instead, I noticed their addition of some images on an enwiki article. Looking at these, I thought that they were likely copyright violations, removed them there, and then came here to note Commons of possible copyio uploads. There is nothing "coordinated" about these, Rama made the same claim on the file deletion page without any substance to that claim. Their only defense for the upload of these images is "we have other similar ones", which is hardly a policy-based rebuttal of the copyvio claim. Basically, these are models, licensed reproductions of copyrighted creations, which may not be posted as "own creation" simply by taking a photograph of them. I have in the past occasionally started other commons deletion request when noticing problematic images being used in enwiki articles, and in most cases these images have then been deleted here. I will not keep quiet about similar problems only because I notice them during an ArbCom request. Fram (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I am very willing to discuss whether and why some props are allowed and others are not, and I would gracefully submit to deletion requests in what I know to be a blurry case; but not coming from Fram. This is deliberate, targeted provocation, and it has to stop. Rama (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Fram you claim that everything is covered at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sauron helmet-P5120122-white.jpg but at no point do you explain why you think the copyright term is more than 16 years per section 75 of the New Zealand copyright act 1994 and the closest caselaw probably being Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth.Geni (talk) 12:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Everything about the statements by Rama. Of course not everything that can be said has been said, that would mean that my word on copyright is gospel, which is unlikely. The first line of Commons:Copyright rules is "Files uploaded to Commons should be free both in the country of origin (as defined by the Berne Convention) and in the United States of America,[...]"? If that is correct, then the status in NZ is not relevant if it is determined to be unacceptable in the USA. Secondly, the 16 years term only applies if it is utilitarian. Finally, some of the objects are less than 16 years old (the balsters are from 2005, the Narnia sword I mentioned below is from 2010, the Star Wars blaster from 2016). Fram (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No comment on the rest, but for future reference Fram, it is generally considered bad form to make ~20 different nominations resulting in ~20 different pings. If you need to nominate multiple files for deletion, please enable VisualFileChange under preferences. GMGtalk 16:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I use the standard tools. Is the VisualFileChange a version of VisualEditor? I refuse to use that peice of crap. Perhaps change the upload wizard to allow a "nominate multiple files" tab instead? Fram (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
      • @Fram: No, Visual Editor is a stand-alone gadget and has nothing to do with the Foundation's Visual Editor. It's more like a Commons version of Twinkle, and just like Twinkle, it's often difficult to do very much without it. But making dozens of individual deletion requests doesn't only spam the uploader with notifications, but it also means that sysops have to close multiple individual requests, rather than close a single request en masse. So it's just a bother for everyone involved. GMGtalk 17:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Okay, thanks. Considering that some nominations have been closed, some have been commented on but left open, and some have not been commented on (last I looked), it was probably best in this case to have multiple nominations, since it seems that at least one admin here thinks that they don't all have the same status or possible outcome. Fram (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Fram: Since you are in conflict with Rama, it would be much better that you refrain from requesting deletion of his files, regardless of the potential copyright issues with them. In addition, some of the files you nominated are obviously utilitarian articles, and therefore OK. I closed these DRs. Copyright status of the Sauron helmet may be an issue, but it is not so obvious. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Which ones are utilitarian? These are film props, not actual useful items, and are not intended to be used, they are intended to be displayed. I note that you find it more important to protect the very easily hurt feelings of Rama than to applaud someone actually bringing copyright violations to your attention. If he introduces more copyvio's into enwiki, I will revert them there and nominate them for deletion here (note that I didn't go through his edit history to find some old violations, these are brand new edits he made, edits by an enwiki admin with a very shaky grasp of and little care for policy, and as witnessed by his comments here (and there) wery little care for factual comments about other editors. Fram (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I see that you for example closed the deletion request for File:Hadhafang-P5120138-black.jpg as a "no valid reason for deletion. Utilitarian article.". In what way is this a "utilitarian" article and not a model of an artistic design creation? Fram (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
AFAICT, this is a real sword, not a plastic copy. It can be used as a sword, therefore it is a utilitarian article whenever and for whatever purpose it was made. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's not clear whether Fram's action could be construed as stalking/harassment or not but mass-nominating Rama's uploads here for deletion because they are a subject of an ArbCom case on the English Wikipedia is distasteful and should never be tolerated. Fram you have been around long enough to know that this sort of behavior is likely to irritate Rama. Please stay away from their uploads and allow other users to handle them. T CellsTalk 15:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I noticed them because of the arbcom case. I nominated them for deletion because they are or appeared to be copyright violations, and because they were used on enwiki. How other users would magically handle them is not clear, it's not as if every upload here gets checked for its copyvio status. Fram (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with people nominating copyvios for deletion in as much as they do that in good faith. I know how someone who is a subject of an ArbCom case on the English Wikipedia or other project would feel if a particular person adding evidence against them is mass-nominating their uploads for deletion on another project. If you haven't been a subject of an ArbCom case, you may not know how it feels. Let's be realistic, it's not fun making other people feeling bad or worse. T CellsTalk 21:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • To think that photos of such objects could be considered as derivative works is not at all extraordinary in itself. And in the extand that someone think that they are potential derivative works, then a deletion request is fully appropriate. We can not blame someone because they don't know Help:VisualFileChange.js. Let's AGF. Furthermore a derivative work it is, and I disagree that Fram should not be allowed from making such nomination. On the contrary, if they act in good faith, then thank him. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
And do not assume Fram is acting badly, and with bad intentions, because if it's not true then it would be very unfair to him. And that is finally worse than a few DRs, and much more worse than what he is accused of. Let the DRs follow their course, and they will be closed by our administrators on the value of the copyright status, and not on the basis on "frustration, reaction, revenge" of a potential conflict of which we do not know nothing and of which it is not our problem. In my opinion, just talk about the files and copyrights. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
And I disagree with putting pressure on people for the comfort of experienced users, that's what comes closest to "harassment" in this story. To check someone's contributions have never been inappropriate, and furthermore the reason invoked is fully credible here. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I struggle to see how File:Special effects sword for Narnia 2010-P5120205-white.jpg could be considered utilitarian, and don't see another reason why it wouldn't be a copyright violation. To upload this while other similar pictures are already under discussion is perhaps not very smart. Anyway, I'll not nominate this or others for deletion, but I do hope someone else will (or will explain to me how this is not a copyvio). Fram (talk) 07:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see how this dagger, which has no decoration, could have a copyright. A dagger is a utilitarian object, whoever made it for whatever purpose. The Sauron helmet may be an issue. Fire arms would be OK if they could be used as a fire arm. Otherwise, probably not. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "A dagger is a utilitarian object, whoever made it for whatever purpose." This simply isn't true. Questions of copyright do consider primary purpose (how else could it be determined whether an object is utilitarian or not?), and a bladed instrument genuinely intended to be sculptural (e.g., merely to sit on a mantel and look "pretty") is not the same as one intended to be employed as a weapon or cutlery. Indeed, this dagger, for example, is considered a sculptural work and has a copyright registration as VAu000490792. This dagger, copyright registration as VAu000490797, is another of many, many examples among U.S. Copyright Office registrations. Эlcobbola talk 19:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Yann: are you looking at the same picture I am? The dagger is decorated on the handle, the hilt, and blade. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The derivatives of the cinematographic world brought back millions and even billions of dollars, I do not think it's exempt from copyright regulations, e.g. Marvel, Lord of the Ring, Disney, ect, ect... The first purprose of such objects is a visual function in a visual and artistic artwork, that is a film (film which is also their first publication). Their first function is therefore artistic. Plus the fact that there are a lot of benefits to be made, so a potential loss of profits for the potential rights holders. I will not risk my savings trying to make a profit by creating something from the photos in question. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Photographs by Jaan Künnap

The mountaineer and photographer Jaan Künnap likely is the Wikimedia user Kynnap.

Please, remove waste from his photos – see user_talk:Kynnap. I’m not sure a random sysop browsing Media missing permission as of 7 May 2019 may be trusted in this respect. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

If not a single photo of his uploads was demonstrably published before, then which pretext for deletion may exist? Surely I know how many crooks upload stuff to Commons, but such treatment of our donors, on par with crooks, is a disrepute. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Strakhov (talk) 09:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Process a deletion request

Could someone of you, please, fast process Commons:Deletion requests/File:Map Africa.jpg? I started it, but noticed later that this is a duplicate, more on the request page. — Speravir – 00:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
THX Strakhov and 4nn1l2. — Speravir – 01:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The Black list user names

This is a list of page titles which are blocked from creation/editing on Wikimedia wikis. All blacks applicable for all Wikimedia wikis include Commons . Today i came to conclusion that some user names from Commons are in this Black list..This Black list is also applicable for Commons. If any admin respond ,i can give full picture

m:Title blacklist/Log

(Caverdom (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC))

@Caverdom: So should we ban billinghurst, -revi and PlyrStar93? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
That is not my meaning ,Some user names are against user name policy and also these user names are in above black list : For example
"HBC AIV helperbot5" a Bot commented on user Bonadea like this :
"7 reports remaining. Commenting on 'Bonadea': User is in the category: Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues7 reports remaining. Commenting on 'Bonadea': User is in the category: Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues".Bonadea name included in this list because of Religious user names are prohibited in all wikis .Bonadea is an user name of Roman religion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=894350413&oldid=894350412.
The user name Bonadea is in above block list (Caverdom (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC))
@Caverdom: Bona Dea ([bɔ.na ˈde.a] 'Good Goddess') was a goddess in ancient Roman religion. She was associated with chastity and fertility in Roman women, healing, and the protection of the state and people of Rome.
What, you're not allowed to call yourself Bona Dea? What about Thor? Cupid? Apollo? What a load of bollocks. The bot in that report is actually linking to the policy on Simple. I see no such limitations on w:Wikipedia:Username policy. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Now that I'm here anyway: on enwiki, we have a troll who is since months trying to get Bonadea there in trouble for her "religious" username. I note that Caverdom is a brand new user here, and their focus is exactly the same. I don't know if Commons has had anti-Bonadea trolling already, but it may be something to take into account... Fram (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC) 


 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=next&oldid=889413937

 Please see above link ..Bot mentioned B3onadea as againest user name policy , the B3onadea is LTA and disruptive eidtor blocked.


Please see following link: Cruizir and Bonadea were blocked and admin saved them in above "Blacked list" 

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Title_blacklist&diff=18052597&oldid=18052591https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Title_blacklist&diff=18052597&oldid=18052591
I am not particular about the above mentioned users, i am talking about many users in the mentioned "Black list" are blocked in some wikies and live in some other wikis.

The religious names not allowed in wikies :Bot another comment on "Jesus" 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=889417365&oldid=889417105

    The following religious names wer blocked.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jesus100

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jesus12

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jesus_christ010

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jesuslover696969]]
If admin permit i can give many users who are blocked in other wiki and live in this wiki,because lack of information


Bot comment on Romanreligion : 

     https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=893804202

Bot comment on Jainism: note 

     https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=893774426

(Caverdom (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC))


I am not taking about particular user ,Jainisms an user was blocked , Buddhism an user blocked .Bot not accepting any religious user names . I am not talking about only religion problem. Many users blocked in other wikis with various reasons and entered in above "Black list" and still alive in Commons i can give the list if you permit

(Caverdom (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC))

Those "Jesus" blocks are about a decade old. I wonder if such blocks would still be enforced today, "Jesus" is just a name. Not very popular in English-speaking parts of the world, but for example the Spanish "Jesús" isn't strange. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


Very best example 

     https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/checkuser

The user "checkuser" blocked and entered in to "Black list" years back , but alive in some other wiki. Almost all users enters in above "Black list" are blocked.But some users alive due to some reasons.


My aim to start this discussion is not to target any user , the user names which are in "Black List" are mostly blocked , But some blocked in other wikis and live in this commons wiki, so please block these remaining users .

{Caverdom (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)) 


User:Alexis Jazz thanq for your participate in this discussion. just i given an information,Decision is at Commons.

(Caverdom (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC))

The "bot" on enwiki doesn't determine that usernames are possibly against some policy, this is done by users. In the case of B3onadea, it was done by a long-term-abuse sockpuppet who was blocked soon afterwards.[20] The examples used in that "report" were the same you use here (Jesus100, Jesus12). The "title blacklist" you link above is not a list of usernames forbidden for religious reasons, but a list of mainspace titles forbidden because they have been used for vandalism, harassment, ..., including lots of harassment of Bonadea. basically, this whole report is one big lie intended to cause trouble for Bonadea. If I were an admin here, I would simply block you for real crosswiki harassment. Fram (talk) 09:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Fram, really i dont know who is Bonadea , just now i search for this Bonadea, i can provide some interesting information:Administrator has given warning this Bonadea.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FGBHJ 

  https://pa.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E0%A8%B5%E0%A8%B0%E0%A8%A4%E0%A9%8B%E0%A8%82%E0%A8%95%E0%A8%BE%E0%A8%B0:Bonadea&action=history


(Caverdom (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC))

Thank you for giving that link to enwiki, saves me the trouble of linking to some more of your many troll accounts harassing Bonadea. Are there any Commons admins awake? Fram (talk) 09:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: you seem to have dealt with this troll sock before? See e.g. also here. Fram (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

No Fram, you are mistaken me . I started this discussion for "the user names which are in "Black List" are mostly blocked , But some blocked in other wikis and live in this commons wiki, so please block these remaining users" .I dont knoe who is jesus ,Who is checkuser , Who is Cruizir , We discussed all about this users, But i have no link with this. Thanq (Caverdom (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC))

 Comment I will make the same comment here as I made at m:Wikimedia Forum where the user made similar comments under a different name. There is a global blacklist for user names and page names, and there is a page for local blacklist for page names. This is known to administrators here, there are no surprises, and no changes to process.

If you have an issue with a specific entry that I, or others, have made then please start a removal discussion at the respective talk page to the blacklisting. If you think that you can start some trouble, about authority, or requisites, best of luck to you. We won't play your games, we will just apply more solutions to the problems we face.

@Fram: I think that this is more a checkuser issue, and think it should be reported there. I would suggest that we let the user just leave better evidence that CUs can use to identify and block this user, though am happy to block them if they wander out of Commons: namespace and start causing problems.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • This is the globally locked user Nsmutte. Block, lock, hat and carry on. GMGtalk 10:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Elcobbola: Thanks. You may wish to note m:SRCU where a xwiki CU was rejected, and note the additional usernames I added for record keeping rather than a meta RfCU. Please discuss this with your fellow CUs, both local and xwiki, as it seems to be escalating.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    SRCU is for projects that do not have local CUs; it was rejected because the filer didn't bother to read the instructions. Nsmutte is well known to CUs. m:SRG and w:WP:RBI are all that is needed. Эlcobbola talk 10:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Elcobbola: Hey! I did read the instructions! SRG is, afaik, to request global locks for confirmed abusers. As I don't know Nsmutte, I had no real proof Caverdom would be related. Caverdom doesn't have an enwiki account attached, the known Nsmutte socks have no Commons account attached. How could local enwiki/Commons CUs confirm that? I thought m:Requests for CheckUser information was only for abuse on Meta so the logical place for my request seemed to be m:Steward requests/Checkuser. I knew it wasn't the right place, but it seemed the closest. I also explained why local CUs likely wouldn't be able to handle it. Actually, it's now still not quite clear to me if/how/where these requests can be made. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    If you read them, you must have seen, and chosen to ignore, the very first sentence ("This page is for requesting CheckUser information on a wiki with no local CheckUsers") and the third bullet under "before making a request" ("Make sure there are no local checkusers or policies") and went ahead with a request you knew was in the wrong venue anyway. I don't know why you think that's better. Эlcobbola talk 14:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    There was no "right" venue, and as far as I understand, there may not exist one. There is afaik no local CU that can check both enwiki and Commons accounts. (unless a local CU happens to be a CU on both projects, maybe, but even in that case I'm not sure that would work) What was I supposed to do? Go to checkuser request here, be told "Nsmutte socks don't have Commons accounts, get lost", go to enwiki checkuser, be told "Caverdom doesn't have an enwiki account, get lost", go to m:SRG, be told "you have no evidence those accounts are related, get lost", go to m:Meta:Requests for CheckUser information, be told "users have no contributions on meta, get lost".. Gee.. Like.. what do you expect? Maybe next time I'll just think "These people don't know where they want their reports and will just shout at me for trying. Screw it." - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It's not terribly important. This user rarely if ever uses the same account cross-wiki. They instead register a new account for each isolated attempt to garner sympathy from local admins who are unaware of their identity (e.g., [21]). CUs aren't even really needed, since the user is blindingly obvious to anyone familiar with them. GMGtalk 14:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Remove EXIF data

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bencemac (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Please remove File:SS Montcalm.jpg's author name from EXIF per ticket:2019051510008796. Thanks in advance! Bencemac (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Removed @Bencemac: Please reply to the ticket. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Bencemac (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: note that wiping the metadata entirely may also remove color profiles. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I uploaded a new version of the original file in which only three fields of Metadata containing private information have been removed; all other data are intact. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

WritingPro1234

Hi:

The new WritingPro1234 is uploading images in Commons and claim they are his/her own. All of them seem to be from websites and are subject to deletion. I wouldn't want to be drastic, so I would ask for an administrator to keep an eye on this user.

Pierre cb (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Their contribution reviewed. Not all are copyvio, but the user takes little care to copyright. They should be warned/blocked if they continue copyvio uploads. No further action needed IMO at the moment. Ankry (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Cross Wiki Vandalism

On 10 May 2019, the user RyanForTrump (talk · contribs) started vandalizing on Wikidata. First, the used the IP 67.215.244.186, then 73.93.154.213, then 50.227.116.133, and finally RyanForTrump. After edit warring and violations of d:Wikidata:Living people administrator Jasper Deng sanctioned the user by blocking them. The user posted multiple things that were inaccurate, libelous, and continued to engage in edit wars. After creating the fourth account they semi-protected Q63245258 or Michael Moates due to the vandals continued edit warring. It took three admins to get control of this mess. So now that user, RyanForTrump, is here on Wiki Commons uploading the same materials without any evidence. For example, File:Michael-Moates-as-Hannah-Thompson.jpg is some random candidate for Congress and the uploader claims its Moates. Now Wikidata has already removed these statements as they (wiki data admins) are libelous and without merit. So the same user came here to upload and vandalize the category Category:Michael Moates by uploading that and also voting on images that are copyrighted and are being requested to be deleted by the original poster. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Former Arizona State Senator and Senate Candidate Dr. Kelli Ward, D.O. and Michael Moates.jpg. This user has been sanctioned on Wikidata and admins might want to take a look here as the person continues to vandalize and make edits against the policy. It should be noted that they are clearly here to only make edits to anything related to Michael Moates and you can see this by looking at their history.

Related links

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ARyanForTrump

2600:6C56:6F08:1CF:0:464:3322:362B 06:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

 Comment I blocked RyanForTrump. We don't need people with an agenda. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: - RyanForTrump is now operating under the sock 93.177.73.226. See the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Former Arizona State Senator and Senate Candidate Dr. Kelli Ward, D.O. and Michael Moates.jpg and his behavior over at Wikidata on Michael Moates. 2600:6C56:6F08:1CF:0:464:3322:362B 22:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Brian Sims

The file File:Representative Brian Sims (D-Philadelphia).jpg appears to be an official portrait of a state representative. The source is listed as "own work," but the description is "Pennsylvania House of Representatives Official Portrait of Representative Brian Sims (D-Philadelphia)." The only edits this user seems to have is to upload this file and to edit the Brian Sims English Wikipedia article, which makes it appear that it is Brian Sims, or someone very closely connected to him. I don't know if Pennsylvania automatically releases all materials into the public domain, but it seems worth looking into. --209.6.10.73 18:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, I tagged the file accordingly.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio via OTRS

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bencemac (talk) 06:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Please remove the watermark of this picture and delete that version. Per ticket:2019051410009466, the sender wants to remove the file but I believe that the painting is PD per Commons:2D copying. Please confirm that I am right. Thanks in advance! Bencemac (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bencemac: I concur. I removed the watermark from File:Montfoort, Anthonie van - Portrait of an unidentified Lady.jpg, would an Admin please hide the old version?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Ankry (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
That bar that Jeff G. removed says "The Elizabeth Báthory portrait" and contains something that looks like an autograph. The article uses File:Portrait of a Lady, Three Quarter Length, in a Ruff with Matching Lace Cap and Cuffs by Anthonie Blocklandt.jpg. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I closed the ticket. Bencemac (talk) 06:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Upload picture on behalf of the author

Hi!

I have been asked by Julia Piera to edit her wikipage and to upload her picture on her behalf. However, wiki wouldn't let me upload the picture because it says that I do not have the right to do so. Could you help me with that? Thank you!

Best, Sunny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnydsnow98 (talk • contribs)

 Comment You uploaded File:Julia Piera.jpg and the file is nominated for deletion as potential copyright violation. OTRS-permission from copyright holder is needed. Copyright belongs to photographer, not to depicted person or uploader. Taivo (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Request to add Ottoman Turkish name label to text

When using "ota" (Ottoman Turkish) the name "لسان عثمانى‎" does not yet display

العربية: ABC
لسان عثمانى: ABC

Would an admin mind adding the label "لسان عثمانى‎"? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

What are differences between modern and Ottoman Turkish except script? If only script differs, will be good idea to look on Serbian (Cyrillic and Latin) support as model. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: Modern Turkish has been purged (or "purified") from Arabic and Persian words in a radical gesture of nationalism. Turks can no longer understand nor read Ottoman Turkish. It's ironical that Persians and maybe Arabs are more likely to understand a text written in Ottoman Turkish. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@WhisperToMe: Commons admins cannot help you. What you want is performed by the MediaWiki magical word {{#language}}
See for example:
{{#language:fa}}: فارسی
{{#language:ota}}: لسان عثمانى
Maybe mw:Extension talk:CLDR is a better place to make your request.
As a side note, Otoman Turkish actually used Perso-Arabic script. If you needed a model, Persian (fa) would be the optimal choice. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I’ve sent WhisperToMe here. Sorry, WhispertoMe, but at least it seems you got a little hint. — Speravir – 01:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@Speravir: It's ok! I went ahead and started a new section at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_talk:CLDR WhisperToMe (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Migrating Commons:General disclaimer to the translate extension

I would like to migrate Commons:General disclaimer and its translations to the translate extension, which is used for almost all the other Commons policies and guidelines apart from Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia, which should also be migrated some time. The advantages are that:

  • If a section in the main English version is changed, the corresponding section in each translated version will be automatically flagged as out of date, and highlighted with a salmon pink background.
  • If a translated version is missing a section, the current English version of that section will be shown instead.
  • Translators will be able to easily see which sections have been changed and need review.

There are 18 translations of this page, mostly in fairly good shape. Some differences are minor (e.g. the Catalan version gives an email address). Others are larger (e.g. the Finnish version mostly dates back to 2008). I estimate that I could probably do the migration in a few hours, certainly in 2 days maximum. I propose the following steps:

  1. I prepare the translation pages, basically
    • Add blank lines between units, remove interwiki links etc.
    • Move the pages from e.g. Commons:Avvertenze generali to e.g. Commons:General disclaimer/it. This is a key step that must be done before the parent page is marked for translation.
    • There are three redirects to be overwritten, Commons:General disclaimer/uk /pt /ja, but they have no history so are no problem
  2. I prepare a copy of the main English page tagged for translation at Commons:General disclaimer/draft
  3. An admin volunteer
    • Reviews the tagged English page,
    • Copies it back over the present version
    • Marks it for translation
  4. FuzzyBot will copy the English version over all the translated versions
  5. I use Special:PageMigration to restore the translated content in the 18 translations

Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: Please do the preparations. When done, just ping me to unprotect the policy page for a few hours so that you can do all the steps yourself. Then I will protect the policy page again. I will be online today (UTC+4:30) and will respond quickly if you just ping me. 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: Thanks. I have prepared and moved the translations. If you could unprotect the policy page I will mark it for translation. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@Aymatth2: Unprotected. Please go ahead. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: Thanks. I have marked the English version for translation, so in theory it could be protected again. But I would like do migrate a few of the translations first, and have to wait for FuzzyBot to wake up and do its thing before I can start. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@Aymatth2: No hurry. Please take your time. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
FuzzyBot seems to be comatose. The page is semi-protected, so I suppose there is no real urgency. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: I have completed the first cut. The translations should be reviewed, but the banner at the top warns that they may be inaccurate. I flagged a few places where they did not seem to match well at all. An improvement, I think. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Protected. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_73&oldid=352317072"