Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 81

Duplicate file with lower resolution

Hi, File:HDV-9065.webm was converted automaticly to this name, when Take Mirrenberg uploaded it with video2. File:DAF M-39 Pantrado 3 film.webm is the wrong file, but the wanted name. A duplicate warning was on the file with the wanted name, but the lower quality, so I removed it. Can a moderator change the name. I can rename it with a little difference, but then we have three versions, so I don't do that. For questions, ask: User:Take Mirrenberg or me. Thanks in advance and regards, - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

deletion of previous version of file

Good evening,

Apologies if this is not the right place to post this but I felt it wouldn't fit in COM:DR. I had to amend several times (and messed up a couple time as well) file République de Gênes.png. As a result, there now are 5 redundant versions of the map in the "file history" which are useless. Could an admin delete them to save on server space ?

Thanks a lot ! --ManuRoquette (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@ManuRoquette: That wouldn't save on server space, just make the file history log prettier.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 23:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

In fact, deleting them would use more server space, because the deletions would have to be logged! --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, apologies for the useless request then :) --ManuRoquette (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

User is making rapid, bot-like edits that are inaccurate

See User talk:VysotskyBot. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. --Krd 10:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

FYI this user did a Bot request in 2018 which was closed as stale, It would seem the user then decided for the next year or 2 to continue with running the bot anyway, Deceitful editors IMHO have no place on this project. –Davey2010^Talk 11:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Possibly wrong inactivity desysops

Hi. I've noticed that the latest batch of desysops due to inactivity seems to have errors. In particular:

• User:Micheletb was notified on their talk page on February 10 of possible desysopping. As required, they signed their name at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2020, and made more than 5 admin actions within six months, meeting the requirements. User:A1Cafel requested their desysopping yesterday, and User:Ruslik0 did so.
• User:Dereckson was notified on their talk page on February 10 of possible desysopping. As required, they signed their name at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2020, and made more than 5 admin actions within six months, meeting the requirements. User:A1Cafel requested their desysopping yesterday, and User:Ruslik0 did so.
• User:Grin was notified on their talk page on February 10 of possible desysopping. As required, they signed their name at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2020, and made more than 5 admin actions within six months, meeting the requirements. User:A1Cafel requested their desysopping yesterday, and User:Ruslik0 did so.

What should we do about this? I will post notices on each named user's talk page, the Village Pump, and the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard of this discussion shortly. Best, —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• • It looks like Dereckson has not made any logged actions since February. Grin made...four? (Do we count a move as an admin action if it's done using the admin toolkit rather than the un-bundled right?) Micheletb seems to have only made two admin actions on 27 March, and none other since 10 February. I'm not sure I understand what the problem is then. There doesn't seem to be a basis in policy for saying that signing the thingy exempts you from the six month requirement. Maybe I'm missing something? GMG^talk 18:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    • GreenMeansGo: They should not have been desysopped in Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2020, as they signed and made the requisite logged actions (>5 since notification). They may be notified and required to sign and perform more admin actions again (as part of Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2020), but they were not notified as required for that. —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
      • But...none of them appear to have made five logged administrator actions in the previous six months. GMG^talk 19:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
        • GreenMeansGo Doesn't matter. Per Commons:Administrators/De-adminship:
          • They had "fewer than 5 admin actions on Commons in the past 6 months" as of February 10, and were therefore properly placed on Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2020.
          • They were properly notified on that day, as per Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.
          • For each of them, there was a "response from the admin requesting retention of rights as required by the notice within 30 days" (the signature).
          • They responded to the notice and made "five admin actions within the period of six months starting at the time of the notice". Therefore, they cannot be desysopped due to Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2020.

        They each are eligible to start the process anew at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2020. However, that doesn't mean that they can be desysopped now. Best, —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

        • • Maybe I'm just misunderstanding. I'll let someone else weigh in. GMG^talk 19:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• True, they were de-sysoped wrongly, but we really should change the wording of the policy. We should change it to something like "two consecutive appearances of name in inactivity checks will result in de-admibship". 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @4nn1l2: Just for my own benefit, I'm not sure I understand how it was in error. COM:DEADMIN seems to indicate the "signature" just prevents the month timeline, but the six month timeline still starts from the time of notification. Am I misunderstanding? GMG^talk 20:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @GreenMeansGo: The crucial part of the current wording is "five admin actions within the period of six months starting at the time of the notice". [emphasis mine] I notified them on 10 Feb 2020 and they immediately made more than 5 admin actions, so they were *immune* to the next (i.e., the current) inactivity check. By the way, I disagree with the current wording of the policy but we should hash it out at VP. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Oooh. I see. I was counting actions since that day. Apologies to all for my distracting confusion. GMG^talk 22:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Shouldn't have been desysoped. User:A1Cafel messed up. Multichill (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Perhaps only admins or crats should be allowed to make such requests in the future? As they are supposed to know the policy. --MGA73 (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I support MGA73's proposal, and apologise for any inconvenience. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  Better to empower bureaucrats with the de-sysop ability. See COM:VPP#Proposal: Allow bureaucrats to remove administrator permission. 4nn1l2 (talk)

  How exactly supporting something like that going to prevent this in the future? Anyone could make this error, even a bureaucrat. 1989_talk 22:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  1) A Commons crat is supposed to be more familiar with the policy than a steward. 2) More users, including me, have crats' noticeboard on their watchlist here on Commons than stewards' board on a different wiki, so more scrutiny. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  Well, A1Cafel has 6 years of experience on the wiki, which is certainly enough to understand such matters, so I share the 1989 statement anyone can make an error, independently of the AN documented below. A clear policy and logic wordings would work here better than a restriction to some user groups. --Dereckson (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Shouldn't have been desysoped and we shouldn't be eager to desysop someone for inactivity. If we pinged them and they basically said, "Yes, I'm around now and then and I still want the rights" we should probably leave them be. - Jmabel ! talk 20:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  I'd be much more active than that.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 03:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• I've added this incident to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#A1Cafel. We all make mistakes, so if this were an isolated case it wouldn't be cause for concern. But I feel A1Cafel is too eager to jump into administrative areas that they don't fully understand, and while a lot of what they do is helpful, too often they end up creating a mess for others to clean up. I think there are w:WP:CIR issues here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. It appears that I removed them in error although I did not check the number of edits myself. I think that any bureaucrat can restore them now. Ruslik (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  The requests looked perfectly plausible, and I think it is not reasonable to expect stewards to look into full detail level before executing such requests. If at all, the procedure should be changed that desysop requests can be filed by bureaucrats only (or of course the affected users themselves).

  Yes, indeed, on bigger wikis, they are enough scrutiny and peer review of the actions not to need to delve deeply in the. We can assume good faith on such requests, especially as they can be fixed and aren't destructive. But meta. should accept legitimate requests from all contributors, as small wikis don't even have bureaucrats. --Dereckson (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have the feeling this is not the first time such mess happens, and to avoid future mistakes I'd like to have the relevant checks be fully automated to exclude any human error. I think I could offer to do that, but not today. The sysop rights of course should be re-granted after the whole inactivity run has been double checked. --Krd 08:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  The easiest way to insure not to miss an admin action would be to start the count including the day of the last warning. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have requested that the crats restore permissions to the affected users at BN, as this seems to be the general consensus.

I do agree that I find it a bit nonsensical that we do not handle desysops locally, when we are among the largest projects. This type of role in my experience is normally reserved for projects that have less contributors than Commons has administrators. It is, at the very least, an unnecessary burden on stewards when they already have quite a bit they are required to look after. But alas, this is not a discussion for this forum, though I'm quite fine co-signing a proposal at VP. GMG^talk 12:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

As a sidenote, it seems that desysopping got out of hand lately. I believe the original purpose was to remove inactive people, so even by signing the keep should be theoreticaly enough to show that the person does indeed exists, alive and intends to do it in the future. Some people seems to play a guideline bending and cutting technique and out to see whether people can be finally desysopped, like having some revenge or winning some weird fight. For me the use of the admin flag is usually invisible, since I assist (mostly Hungarian) people to see why images were deleted, whether they could be undeleted, or whether someone was screwed something up (bans, deletes and other hidden actions), and rarely do the undelete myself since I prefer to have it discussed first. Every time I have to fake admin actions to keep the damned bit, since without those it seems I haven't needed it at all! I understand that indeed, invisible actions aren't a good activity measurement, despite that I strongly disagree asking for anything more than the signature of intention, but I accept that it's been the will of the local community. But the powerplay and wordplay here, and additionally not even pinging me in the discussion about me is outright rude (I found it only because I started to search about the permission changes on my account). If anyone asked my opinion in the matter I would support the lax and permissive approach: if someone can be counted and considered admin activity, then it should. My personal biased opinion. --grin ✎ 18:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Apologies @Grin: I would have pinged you but I presumed that you were pinged by the original post. Not a safe presumption to make to be sure. I'm not at all opposed to a broader community discussion about the inactivity regime. But it would seem that may be more suited to an alternative venue. I'm not sure we haven't resolved all the issues that are within the immediate scope of the present discussion. GMG^talk 19:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Backlog of Deletion requests

Could willing admins please jump in and help close outstanding DR's? There are still open DR's from Jan 2020! Gbawden (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Merging 3 deletion requests into one

Hello, is it possible to merge my three deletion requests: Commons:Deletion requests/File:KGTVmural.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:KGTVstudio.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:KGTVTeufel.png into one mass request? This would make the discussion easier because they are all about the same subject and were uploaded by the same user. Thank you in advance. --Thoji (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Broken/incomplete February DR list

The display of deletion requests after February 11 is broken on Commons:Deletion requests/2020/02, see bottom of the page, but I can't find the reason; certainly some wrong formatting in one of the deletion requests, I suppose... Gestumblindi (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• The page has reached maximum template limit. -- CptViraj (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the information. Seems to be even "normal" behaviour if you try to look at the DR page for a whole month; I usually look at individual days only, but tried to have an overview of the older still open DRs in order to process some of them... Gestumblindi (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@CptViraj: Can we perhaps break the months down into weeks to avoid the maximum template limit?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: That would work but I don't know if it is a good idea or not. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Closing DRs will solve the problem along the way. Problem is we have too many DRs and too many that are not easy to close. --MGA73 (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@CptViraj and MGA73: You can also comment out or remove the days up to but not including the last day you can see in preview or your sandbox to access the next group, or view individual days starting at the 11th.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the best way I've found so far is to use Special:PrefixIndex/Commons:Deletion_requests/2020/02/. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Unterkategorien zu Category:Liebfrauenkirche (Duisburg) zur Gliederung vorhandener Bilder

Für den Vorstand des Trägers der Liebfrauenkirche Duisburg soll ich in 'Commons' Unterkategorien definieren und die Bilder entsprechend neu zuordnen, etwa: Category:Liebfrauenkirche (Duisburg)

 --> Category:Exterior of Liebfrauenkirche 
     --> Category:Steel Sculpture of Bernar Venet

Ich habe bei vier jpg-Bildern mit der Stahlskulptur hinzugefügt: Category:Steel Sculpture of Bernar Venet . Dann wollte ich diese Unterkategorie definieren, über Kategoriesuche - noch nicht vorhanden -- und neu erstellen. Diese Aktion wird abgewiesen: Verletzte Regel <<Galleries with no gallery tag>>, und ich möchte mich an einen Admin wenden. Wie muß ich vorgehen, damit ich die gewünschten neuen Unterkategorien zu Category:Liebfrauenkirche (Duisburg) definiert bekomme? Vielen Dank und herzliche Grüße! Wilfried Haverkamp WilfriedHaverkamp (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Eine Unterkategorie wird angelegt, indem man die Seite für die Kategorie mit einem Inhalt speichert, also mindestens der übergeordneten Kategorie, d.h. Category:Exterior of Liebfrauenkirche würde zu einer Unterkategorie von Category:Liebfrauenkirche (Duisburg), wenn die Seite mit [[Category:Liebfrauenkirche (Duisburg)]] als Seiteninhalt gespeichert würde. Daraufhin könnten Bilder, die das Äussere dieser Kirche zeigen, durch Ergänzung der Kategorie auf der jeweiligen Bildbeschreibungsseite so kategorisiert werden. Mit Galerien und gallery-Tags hat das nichts zu tun, diese finden bei Kategorien keine Anwendung, du hast also vermutlich versucht, die Bilder auf der Kategorienseite einzufügen statt umgekehrt und korrekt die Kategorie bei den Bildern. Gestumblindi (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Help needed with category move

I tried to rename Category:Metro maps of the UK to spell out the name of the country, but Category:Metro maps of the United Kingdom already exists as a redirect. Could an admin please do the move? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Delete copyright violations files

File:TWICE MORE AND MORE.jpg and File:2020 Rocket Punch 2nd Mini Album Bouncy Showcase.png should be deleted because of copyright violations. Cloud 9 x V.A.V.I boy x Yes, I'm color full (J.Smile) 06:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Both deleted by Gbawden. In the future, please mark copyright violations with {{copyvio|Write here reason for deletion}}. Taivo (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Backlog or template for file revision removals

Having been working on podcast uploads for IA audio, there are many sound files that have been correctly released on a free license at IA, but for Commons we need versions with near zero 'sampling' or inclusion of NC or ND music. This means volunteers reviewing and cropping out audio segments as needed. Example File:SP043 -Substral PolyWohnzimmer (IA sp043).mp3.

Is there a template to mark these for file history deletions or a backlog? It seems overly complex to make a noticeboard request each time. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fæ: You might be looking for a subcat of Category:Candidates for revision deletion Minorax^talk 16:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Slowking4's user talk page access

• ANU archive from April 2019, lots of evidence, mixed opinions
• Slowking4 block log

Back in April 2019 Slowking4 was blocked for 3 months, then indefinitely. In October 2019 @Steinsplitter: updated the log to not some use of sockpuppets, which from memory were relatively benign activities, though someone may wish to correct me if any sock accounts did especially bad things.

I propose that Slowking4's user talk page access is restored, so if they wish, they may make an unblock request or amend the indef to a fixed term.

This is a procedural request, of special interest because Slowking4 had been very active on this project since 2011. We can recognize that Slowking4 trolled many users in discussions and that behaviour deteriorated, whether by deliberate intent or not, and users affected may, and probably will, oppose an unblock request. However removing the ability to even discuss block appeals on any established user's talk page should be kept extremely rare, and most of those cases where this should be made permanent ought to have sufficient evidence of unacceptable behaviour to enact a global ban, not just indefs and removing the ability to communicate.

For transparency I have no personal interest, and have not been in communication with Slowking4 since their account was blocked. --Fæ (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• As a user who is indeffed on four projects, I would presume they can follow the instructions at Commons:Blocking policy and email the relevant administrator if they wish to have this restored. I'm not sure we really need to proactively advocate on their behalf, as there doesn't seem to be compelling reason to believe they cannot do so themselves should they wish to. GMG^talk 14:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Slowking4's email is also disabled. With regard to 'advocate', that's not what this is. Procedurally the project should default to allowing user talk page unblock requests, and only when specifically user talk pages are actively misused, such as defaming other contributors and making unacceptable personal attacks, should that removal be in place. --Fæ (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Fair enough. But at the same time, they remain active on Wikimedia projects, such as on Meta, where they seem mostly concerned with why they are right and everyone else is wrong. So it's not clear they have any intention of returning in good faith regardless. GMG^talk 14:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, because that's a reasonable essay. Can't read it as a bad faith attack on Commons and checking the links, there is nothing there that could be interpreted as a personal attack. As evidence of being 'neutral' it's a good way for Slowking4 to work out their critical/negative viewpoint about how Wikimedia projects work without disrupting others. --Fæ (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I mean, I'll meet you halfway. SK has no shortage of ways to contact me by email across projects, and if he wishes to write an appeal to the community, I will be happy to post it for broader discussion on his behalf. I just don't know that there is much precedent on any project I'm active on, of aware of, for lifting existing sanctions without the appeal of the user themselves. GMG^talk 14:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Removing user talk page access is not a sanction as far as I'm aware. It only happens when user talk pages are being misused, and not sure there's serious evidence there is a history of that on Commons. This feels like we are talking past each other as to why user talk page access should rarely be removed, and only then based on solid evidence of misuse.

A basic principle of how our policies work, is that we should default to being transparent unless there are good reasons to do judge confidential information off-wiki. Writing personal emails to you off-wiki, is not defaulting to transparency, when the normal process is for blocked users to discuss their block on their talk page, where any of us can read it and comment on it. You are super, however it's never a good thing for respected individuals to set themselves up as personal and permanent gatekeepers. --Fæ (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Not offering to be a gatekeeper, merely a facilitator. More than happy for them to copy you on the message also, or for that matter, anyone else to do the same. TPA is listed under COM:BLOCK. So I'm not sure how it can clearly be construed as not being a type of sanction. For better or worse, COM:BLOCK does not appear to allow for appeals by third parties. Not that we couldn't have a community discussion about the merits of doing so. GMG^talk 15:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

•  Oppose until he admits wrongdoing on meta and promises on meta to desist.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Commons' policies are clear, we do not and never have punished Commons accounts for activities on other projects. If you think that a global ban is needed, Commons is not where that happens.

Just to clarify, this thread is not an unblock request. Restoring user talk page access to discuss a future unblock request, says absolutely nothing about whether the current blocks will ever be changed. --Fæ (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

•  Support restoring talk page access to give them another chance to repeal their block, although [1] isn't particularly encouraging. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Copyright violations

File:Ala Hadrat.jpg is clearly a copy right violation, user uploads this file from YouTube video, they have lied about that it is their own work, it must be speedily deleted and user should be warned about it2401:4900:1FF9:53B7:F943:D523:2AFB:467C 16:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome. What is keeping you from tagging it for speedy deletion and warning the uploader yourself?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Please delete

Please delete the middle revision in File:KeithRowley.jpg. We do not have any source info or any indication of permission to use it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy ping Lennoxjaipersad in the unlikely chance the respond. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

CFD close request

Hi, Could an admin close Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/11/Category:Sexy librarian meme please as it's remained open since 2017 (and there's been 8 calls for closure), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Hopefully properly Gbawden (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done as well due to edit conflict, sorry Gbawden. --Achim (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Haha this situation is exactly like buses here in the UK - When you want one bus two come instead! , Many thanks Gbawden and Achim55 your help is greatly appreciated :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Editor making rapid, bot-like, inaccurate edits

Special:Contributions/Elgewen. E.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Working-Class_Literature(s).pdf&diff=0&oldid=400365158 and https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:The_Public_Domain_Review_Colouring_Book_Volume_01_(A4).pdf&diff=prev&oldid=441658440 —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

 Comment I blocked Elgewen for 3 days due to running unapproved bot. Taivo (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

 Comment Schlürcher complained in my talkpage and I unblocked Elgewen per his/her request. Taivo (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Mass delete, wrong license

Resolved

This user's uploads all claim a Commons compatible license whereas the page they're from says non-commercial. --Palosirkka (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Is featured media bot closing votings too early?

@Eatcha: Either I do not understand the FMC voting rules or User:FeaturedMediaBot is closing votings too early. For example Commons:Featured_media_candidates/candidate_list#File:Lorentz_сhaos_as_black_hole.ogv,_featured,_featured has a voting period end on 2020-08-31 but has been closed 13:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC). Is this behaviour intended? -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This is normal. Because FMC gets much less traffic than FPC, we allow a much longer voting period to get to the required 5 support votes. However, if that goal is reached earlier, it can be closed as long as 9 days have passed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, now I understand. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

ResolvedDr. Schorsch (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Merging three deletion requests into one

Hello, could one of the admins merge my three deletion requests: Commons:Deletion requests/File:KGTVmural.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:KGTVstudio.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:KGTVTeufel.png into one mass request? This would make the discussion easier because files share the same topic and were uploaded by the same user. Thank you in advance. - Thoji (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Ezarateesteban 23:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Nuke request

Please remove this user's contributions per OTRS request. Thanks in advance! Bencemac (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Gbawden (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gbawden! Bencemac (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bencemac (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:Scientific racism deletion requests

I just wanted to inform admins that we have some deletion requests that seems to be motivated by the goal to remove content that is concidered racist. It does not have to be a problem but DR's like that have a risk of not being neutral and there is also a risk of personal attacks or uncivil discussion. --MGA73 (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Scientific racism, and being racist are not the same meaning.

Please avoid making these deletion discussions about the massive sock farm currently active, read as if someone is going around randomly calling people racist.

A better place to discuss this issue would be Commons:Village pump#Scientific racism, eugenics, and the sock farm that has successfully manipulated Commons with the rest of the community, rather than only asking administrators to get involved.

I suggest that anyone that has information comment at the VP rather than here.

Thanks in advance. --Fæ (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit war about a duplicate category tree

User:Adamant1 created and repeatedly tried to restore a duplicate category tree Category:Logos of radio stations, although the category tree Category:Radio station logos consensually and continually exists since 2011.

His answer at User talk:Adamant1#Duplicate category tree indicates that he absolutely doesn't understand and doesn't accept that duplicate category trees are unwanted here and that naming conventions, consensus, continuity and consistency should be respected. If there is an established category tree with consistent naming, it is not acceptable to create simply a paralel duplicate category tree with duplicate subcategories.

Would anyone be able to teach this colleague a little? If he still does not understand that the effort to rename a large categorization tree is not permissible by the guerrilla creating of a duplicate categorization tree, then the question is whether any measure should be taken to protect the project instead of further edit war or discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

First, the categories for logos are done in a bunch of different ways. Including through duplicate categories. So, there isn't any consensus about how to categorize logos that I am going against like he claims there is. That said, I asked him if there was a discussion from when Category:Logos of radio stations was created in 2011 showing that there was consensus about it, because it could have just as likely been randomly created. He didn't provide one though. If he had of though, I would have been perfectly fine doing a CfD about it. I just don't feel like doing a CfD for about a changing a category that wasn't originally created through one. That said, the vast majority of logo categories are in the form of "Logos of whatever."For instance "Logos of postcard publishers", "Logos of organizations‎", etc etc ad nauseum. So his assertion that "logos of radio stations" doesn't follow naming conventions, continuity, or is somehow destructive to the project is simply false. Especially since it wouldn't have been a "duplicate" category when I was done organizing the logos and redirected it. Last time I checked, people are free to improve categories and sort things how they want to.

Second, Category:Radio logos, which is essentially the same category as Category:Radio station logos, has existed since 2010. So his exact same argument that we should go with what has "consensually and continually exists since whenever" could just as easily be made to say we should be going with Category:Radio logos. I don't see him advocating for it though or him edit warring anyone over it. I don't see him trying to deal with any of the other many duplicate logo categories either or trying to standardize any of them. Whereas, I am dealing them and have been standardizing things better for a while now. Considering the hours of work I have put into improving logo categories and the zero amount he has outside of the edit warring, it's pretty obvious this whole thing is just because he wants to get his way and isn't a genuine good faith effort to improve things with the categories of logos. Also, considering how messed up things are with logo categories, it would be extremely time consuming to the point of being prohibitive if I had to do a CfD every time I wanted to create a new category like he's saying I should.

Third, there was nothing "guerrilla" about what I was doing. I find the accusation that there was rather insulting. There's nothing "guerrilla" about improving categories. People do it all the time and I stated pretty clearly on my talk page why I was doing it. It's fine to disagree with my reasoning for creating a new category, but it's not OK to accuse of doing something nefarious or intentionally destructive to the project just because he disagrees with me. Especially since I was more then willing to discuss things with him, look into it more, and do a CfD if it turned out there was actually consensus about it. Ultimately, I see nothing wrong with my actions. Nor do I need to be "taught" how to do anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

You are making some assumptions here that I disagree with. You claim that duplicate categories are ok to use, while they are not; rename categories and/or add redirects if needed, but there should only be one category per subject. If this claim was based on your perceived similarity between Category:Radio logos and Category:Radio station logos: "Radio logos" also include logos of radio programmes/shows that are not broadcasting stations themselves. Lastly, improving Commons is something we indeed should all strive for, but you are not free to do so as you like; we have rules to follow. If you are adamant about renaming the current category tree, use the move button and redirect old categories to new ones, but do not leave the same old and new categories functioning side by side. If you meet resistance, discuss. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not making any assumptions. Like I said, I had planned to redirect the old category after I was done moving the logos into the appropriate sub-categories and into the new one. ŠJů's didn't allow me to though, because he kept reverting me and wouldn't allow me to do it. Even after I told him what my plan was on my talk page. I've redirected plenty of old categories and I know what the process is. I'm also fully aware of the guidelines and in no way was I violating them. Otherwise, point it out. Also, like I've already said I responded to ŠJů on my talk page and asked him to glorify what his issues was etc, but he reported me for "guerrilla" editing instead of responding. Otherwise, it would have been worked out. So, I'm not the one that needs to be told to discuss things. He is. Especially if the alternative is going to be opening totally bogus complaints like this one. 100% things should be discussed and worked out though, and 100% ŠJů opening this report instead of replying to the message on my talk page wasn't him doing either thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Good to see that you are not after duplicating categories. I think part of the problem is the order in which you tried to impose the new category tree. You describe it as moving files first and redirecting the old categories later. Until the actual redirection, this can be perceived as category duplication, as was the case with ŠJů. I suggest you do it the other way around, so redirect first, move files later. On another note, it would have indeed been preferable that ŠJů continue the discussion on you talk page first instead of going to COM:AN, though phrases like "Whatever your opinion about it is." do not really invite to doing so. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't really thought about it at the time, but I guess that's an option. Which I'll probably do from now on when I can. As far as goes "Whatever your opinion about it is. goes, I could see where that might be taken negatively, Except it was in response to his original message where he said there was a pre-exiting consensus. Which wouldn't be his opinion. So, what I meant was "Whatever your opinion about it is, I'd like to read the original discussion about how the logos should be categorized if there is one." Although, I admit I could have phrased it better. Part of the problem was that I had reverted one of reverts and asked him in the changeset comment to wait until I had time to respond to his message on my talk page before reverting me, but he ignored me and just did it again. Which made me think he was more concerned with things being done how he wanted it then he was anything else. That said, I still could have said things better. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Allow bureaucrats to remove administrator permission

Can any uninvolved admin (shouldn't be a crat) please close this proposal? It's almost 3 months of discussion, and as of writing this message I see 20 Supports / 6 Opposes ; 76% in favour. I think it would be nice if we can get this done before 13th September. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done by King of Hearts. -- CptViraj (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

German-speaking admin advice sought

I was just adding {{Unsigned}} to File talk:Lesbiche - 1928 - D- Die freundin 1928.jpg but my infinitesimal understanding of German made me think this might need a more through cleanup. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

it's full of typos and means something like "I grow a beard when I have to take too much, I'm suffering from dyslexia". Maybe it's a call for help but as it's over 7 years old I would suggest to delete it. --Joschi71 (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Non-treated RfD with false, libelous information about living person

Can you please take a look at the RfD Commons:Deletion requests/File:WMSK – Výročná správa 2018.pdf? The file contains false, libelous information about living person (me) and is proposed for deletion for more that 2 months already. Thanks! --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. O, how I hate to take such decisions! But nobody did it for months, so I am bold today and close the request. Taivo (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

File renaming request

Kindly ask to rename File:Весь Петербург 1913 год.jpg → File:Novoderevensky vokzal in Petersburg (1913 map).jpg.
Reason: The Russian name given 8 years ago by the uploader is the name of the source of the image (the annual city directory ru:Весь Петербург, en:Ves Peterburg), while the object he intended to illustrate was the location of the «Novoderevensky vokzal» (Novoderevensky railway station). Thank you, Cherurbino (talk) (request is transferred from technical fgorum) Cherurbino (talk) 09:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cherurbino:  Done, please use {{Rename}} in the future.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Cherurbino (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2020 in Sweden mass message

Hi!

I am part of the organizing team behind Wiki Loves Monuments 2020 in Sweden, and would like to send a mass message. The recipients would include two groups: previous Wiki Loves Monuments participants in Sweden, and participants in Wiki Loves Earth this last spring. We believe that both these groups would be interested to know that Wiki Loves Monuments 2020 in Sweden is starting 1 September.

I've followed the recommendations here and here, and have created a page with the necessary information at Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_in_Sweden/Mass_message. Could an admin please send the message for me via Special:MassMessage? Many thanks. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

 Doing…. -- CptViraj (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, this is my first time sending mass message. Am I supposed to update time in your signature or leave it as it is? -- CptViraj (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Does it work if you update it to four tilde? Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eric Luth (WMSE): Four tlide will replace your signature with Mass Message Delivery signature. I can replace timestamp in your signature with ~~~~~ which will give current time. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense I think! Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

"F" file

Hi admins. I think it is high time to close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ibne.png and other similars around, waiting since almost two months. --E4024 (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The backlog of unclosed deletion requests is currently very high, reaching into the early months of this year. Commons administrators are working on the backlog, but it will take some time to clear. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

We could do with more Admins who know what they're doing, perhaps. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

We could also consider loosening the requirements. Perhaps allowing for a type of 30-day proposed deletion for out of scope images? I wonder if there's some way that CFD doesn't continue with open discussions seven years later. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I mean, that would just shift the backlog to a different place. DRs don't actually require a consensus; if no one participates after several months then the closing admin will just make a decision based on their best judgment. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Como adicionar cartaz de filme a uma página

Saudações, Estou editando uma página de um filme que ainda será lançado, o diretor me passou o poster e eu queria saber qual a maneira correta de subir essa imagem para ilustrar a página do filme. Já tentei subir algumas vezes mais ele é deletado por não está de acordo com as regras. Queria uma ajuda de como colocar essa imagem do jeito correto. Obrigado — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddy Oliveira Designer (talk • contribs) 18:32, 1 September 2020‎ (UTC)

Adding a movie poster to a page

---

Greetings,

I am editing a page of a film that is yet to be released, the director handed me the poster and I wanted to know what is the correct way to upload this image to illustrate the page of the film. I've tried to climb a few more times it is deleted because it does not comply with the rules. I wanted a help on how to put this image in the right way. Thank you

translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 21:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Eddy Oliveira Designer: É só seguir essas regras. Basicamente, ou:

1. o dono do copyright do cartaz o licencia de acordo com COM:L e pode-se carregar a imagem aqui no Commons para qq uso em qq wikipédia; ou:
2. se obtém na Wikipédia Lusófona autorização para carregar a imagem ao abrigo do fair use.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Eddy Oliveira Designer: Se você deseja fazer upload de imagens de pôster de filmes de alta resolução aqui no Wikimedia Commons, consulte Commons:Licensing/pt para saber por que não podemos aceitar imagens de pôster de filmes de terceiros e tenha o (s) designer (s) de imagem, fotógrafo (s) , ou o (s) produtor (es) publicam Commons:Licensing/pt compatível com licenciamento para tal trabalho em seu site ou presença nas mídias sociais ou enviar a imagem e permissão via OTRS/pt. Cartazes de filmes de baixa resolução na Wikipedia em português foram carregados lá para uso justo, sujeito a pt:Wikipédia:Posição das Wikipédias em relação ao fair use. Não aceitamos arquivos de uso justo aqui no Wikimedia Commons. A Wikipedia portuguesa oferece duas opções de envio direto para aquele projeto: pt:Wikipédia:Carregar ficheiro e pt:Especial:Carregar imagem.

If you want to upload high resolution movie poster images here on Wikimedia Commons, please see Commons:Licensing for why we can't accept movie poster images of others, and have the image designer(s), photographer(s), or producer(s) post Commons:Licensing compliant permission for such work on their website or social media presence or send the image and permission via OTRS. Low resolution movie posters on English Wikipedia (there called "film posters") were uploaded there for Fair Use subject to en:WP:F. We do not accept Fair Use files here on Wikimedia Commons. en:Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard gives four options for uploading directly on that project: Click here to start the Upload Wizard on top in the middle; en:Wikipedia:Files for upload:Files for upload process; Plain form for local uploads; and Old guided form (the latter three in the right column under "Wikipedia"). Portuguese Wikipedia offers two options for uploading directly on that project: pt:Wikipédia:Carregar ficheiro and pt:Especial:Carregar imagem.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 21:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Renaming a file to make it more obvious to reusers that an image promotes scientific racism

For those unaware of what scientific racism, please check the Wikipedia article, or refer to meta:Talk:Black Lives Matter#Scientific racism to understand why this is a systemic cross-wiki problem, with Commons being deliberately misused.

Raising this rename action today for potential comment or other suggestions of solutions for: File:Neighbor-joining Tree-2.png → File:Neighbor-joining Tree-2, falsely promoting scientific racism by using Negroid, Mongoloid and Australoid.png

This rename is to make it a lot clearer on the multiple articles which have nothing to do with scientific racism or historic definitions of human races that this is not an appropriate neutral diagram to illustrate articles about modern anthropology, or generic articles about drawing "neighbour tree" diagrams. Deliberate misuse where terms like "Mongoloid" and "Negroid" are highly inappropriate include:

1. zh:近鄰結合法 (neighbor-joining method)
2. uk:Метод приєднання сусідів (neighbor joining method)
3. ur:ریاستہائے متحدہ میں مقامی امریکی (Native Americans)

Sadly, though this is wilful misuse, because of our COM:INUSE policy, deletion requests are unlikely to to halt the misuse of Commons in this way, unless every single insertion across multiple Wikipedia languages has been removed, regardless of whether the original insertions or file creations are by banned users or known sock farms. This file rename helps that process.

There are several other files where this method of renaming to make the issues of Original Research and Non-Neutral a more obvious issue for usage in non-English Wikipedias. --Fæ (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Note, I have now also moved File:Congo warrior Negroid Negroe Black African spear couple.png as the emphasis of "Negroid" was not the way the 1902 source for the published photograph presented it. The choice of the uploader to promote the word "Negroid" when the sources do not, is manipulative and hard for the Wikimedia Commons community to identify or correct. --Fæ (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

If we rename files to 00000000001.jpg, 00000000002.jpg ... 00063900001.jpg we would no longer have files with problematic names. We would not have to discuss if a name might be offending anyone or if it is neutral. It would also same users a lot of time they spend moving files around. There would no longer be any problems when a file is renamed and leaving broken pages anywhere. Then it would only be a matter of file descriptions, categories and structured data. That can all be fixed without influence on any articles. We could reserve numbers for each wiki so if a file is uploaded to en.wiki for example it can later be moved to Commons and keep the same file name (number). If we do not do that we can spend the next 100 years moving files around because what was a good word yesterday is a bad word today and tomorrow a new word is bad and offending.

What do you think of that? Should we rename a few files or should we solve the problem once and for all? --MGA73 (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• I think the time and place for jokes is not here/now. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Tuvalkin: You may think it is a joke but clearly some cares much about file names or this post would not have been started in the first place. --MGA73 (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: in the light of your trusted roles as a Commons administrator and a volunteer with access to OTRS and in that capacity represents the Wikimedia 'brand', could explain exactly why a manipulative campaign to wrongly insert "Negroid" (black race) or "Mongoloid" (yellow race) into filenames and diagrams, when this does not accurately represent the original sources, is something that you don't want us to put right? Not just here but in a succession of discussions in relation to correcting the insertion of modern scientific racism, you have been effectively running interference to stop correcting the blatant misinformation and misrepresentation (ref User_talk:Fæ#Recent 'genetics' related DRs), so I'd really like to understand what outcome you expect and why it would be better for Commons, and the Wikipedia projects that rely on our content, to let those that promote the idea that there is a human white race and a human yellow race just carry on and use our project as their free forum for their political racial lobbying. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fæ: Read what I write please. I'm suggesting to remove ALL problems once and for all. I'm sure that "negroid" is not the only word that is concidered to be problematic. In Denmark there have been discussions about the words "Slave" and "Eskimo" and I know that there have also been problems with a word like "Women" where someone think that "People who menstruate" is better. We can avoid all future problems and discussions if we change the way we name files. In my opinion we don't need to put information in file names. Take Wikidata where we do not use names but numbers. As far as I know it works perfectly fine. So why insist on keeping descriptive filenames? Offending or misleading names is not the only problem. Chinese and other signs/letters is also a probem for some users. --MGA73 (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Throwing in "Eskimo" and "People who menstruate"? Classic right-wing tropes being used as chum, really?

You are running interference, and it would really help to understand why you are so committed to persistently creating tangents when you state this is not a "joke". Make the call, either stick to "No, no, no. I'm staying out of it" or explain why you are doing this and why it is for the good of this project that you are an administrator for.

Just to reiterate, your actions are hampering attempts to correct the uploads and cross-wiki insertion of images that falsely promote the idea that there is a human white race and a human yellow race. If you want, you could force my hand to create a proposal, but COM:SCOPE already means that we correct or delete material with negative educational value, and user created modern scientific racism is not an exception. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

These Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)'s exist already, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/entity/M17151054 --Schlurcher (talk) 07:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Exactly: Each file has already a serial ID. Filenames, on the other hand, are supposedly a handy, human-readable way to access them. Problematic filenames should be renamed, that’s COM:FR 101. I chose to interpret MGA73’s apport to this discussion as an obvious, if tasteless joke — since it has zero technical merit. If not a joke, then it had to be a derailing of the subject, soon to escalate to mention attack helicopters — and looks like we’re there already. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Fæ: Excellent point: It is worrying when the original 1902 caption was not problematic, and stays usable today, while the filename selected in 2011 uses blatantly racist terms: The term "Negroid", especially, is fully unexcusable — for not only the term itself is irrecuperably tainted with racist overtones (like so many other such terms, irrespective of etymology and meaning), but also the very notion is itself unscientific and useless for any serious work on human Biology. As for that one image, now renamed, the categorization as "Scientific racism" can now be removed. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• I further suggest to (exceptionally) delete all redirects resulting from these renamings. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

WRT redirects, these are handy for non-sysops to see what has been going on, so suggest delaying their deletion for a couple of weeks. There are also issues of housekeeping for the global usage where some Wikipedias might not receive the automatic renaming. --Fæ (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Sounds good. There should be a tracking category for Category:Files formerly named in apparent promotion of scientific racism (with {{Hidden cat}}) to replaced the tagging with Category:Scientific racism in files which are not inherently so — that would us all to keep a persistent record of these cases. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fæ: Do you have any examples of filenames or projects in which the projects did "not receive the automatic renaming"?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the file under discussion. The old name was not replaced in ru, uk, ur and zh language Wikipedias, ref global usage report and none of these usages is relevant to historic race theories, they are just misleading insertions which "happen to" trigger COM:INUSE and evade deletion on Commons for having no educational value. --Fæ (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• «The file under discussion» being the next neighbour diagram, not the 1902 Mlolo couple. I was suddenly puzzled. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Tuvalkin and Fæ: If you chose to see this as a joke or a derail no matter what I say then there is not much point in discussing it further.

@Schlurcher: Then the question is if we should not just use URI instead but that would have to be at another place. --MGA73 (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Now moved File:Mongoloid skull Huxley.png to File:Side and front views of the skull of a Calmuck.png, another derived work by Ephert (talk · contribs). This used "Mongoloid" in the filename when this was not justified in the source (Huxley, 1890). To avoid doubt I have linked to the source page so that anyone can verify the facts. --Fæ (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Now moved File:Árbol de uniéndose de vecinos.png to File:Árbol de uniéndose de vecinos, falsely promoting scientific racism by using Negroid, Mongoloid and Australoid.png; it's just another variation of Ephert promoting scientific racism hidden within an innocuous file name. --Fæ (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Now moved File:Sart man Mongoloid.png to File:In Russian Turkestan p.269 crop (IA inrussianturkes00meakgoog).png, another Ephert manipulation as the source only called the family photograph this tiny crop is from "A Sart and his sons". --Fæ (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

 Comment Looks like nearly every photo used in ast:Mongoloide and their derivatives needs similar treatment. William Graham (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not always straightforward. Where there are historic examples of outdated race theories, such as those published in the 19th Century, then using the race words may be valid if there is correct and immediate context for using it. So a photograph including the word "Negro" or "Negroid" may be justified if the original source used that exact language directly. What Ephert has chosen to do is use words like "Mongoloid" and "Negroid" where the original book has not used these words to label or title the photograph, even though the book itself might use those words in other locations. Unpicking this rubbish wastes a lot of volunteer time and will probably never be fully undone considering these examples are already up to 9 years old without detection or complaint; probably because there is a lot of "racial" lobbyists active on our project that love making it look like these are "legitimate" views and user fantasies are okay to host for whatever twisted reasons.

Even given some of those more tricky examples, the pattern is clear. Should Ephert ever return to using their account on Wikimedia projects, this deliberate and shocking misuse of Wikimedia Commons to manipulate multiple Wikipedia projects into promoting scientific racism, would sensibly be the subject of a block or a global ban. --Fæ (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

As there are many more examples from the same uploader that need fixing or may never be fixed fully cross-wiki, I have started User:Fæ/Scientific racism cases. Should I work on other examples they will be added there for reference. Considering the longevity of the cases, logging these somewhere on-wiki, even when not for blocked users or established sock puppets is beneficial to the project. As a precaution against allegations of creating hostile pages, the user account names are not mentioned, only the files and fixes. --Fæ (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment. I completely agree with MGA73. Renaming system does not really working her. People do spend too much energy in renming. It can avoid a lot's of conflicts, reduce of CommonsDelinker bot work and other bots that doing the same job. It will make redundant many of commons work which is not really necessary. -- Geagea (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

  I disagree with MGA73, names are important to, and carry significant meaning for, many of our users and reusers. I thought MGA73 was being facetious. A serious proposal for such a drastic change would need consensus at COM:VPP.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Jeff G. Yes I know such a suggestion needs to be discussed at VP (as I said above it would have to be discussed somewhere else) but you pinged me :-) If you asked 20 years ago if it would make sense to make a wikiproject where there were no names at all only numbers then I'm sure everyone would laugh and called you crazy. Well now we have wikidata! As I'm sure you know Flickr also uses numbers as "filenames" and I know many users on Commons that have no problems finding photos on Flickr. --MGA73 (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• I also agree with Jeff - words are very important indeed. Commons really should look long and hard at some of the garbage that is here simply because it is freely licensed. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

  Manipulating filenames, or falsifying diagrams from academic research via Wikimedia Commons in order to bias Wikipedia(s) is a highly effective form of vandalism. File names, especially for controversial subjects, need to be accurate and where charts are taken from academic research, again these must be verifiable. In these cases maps of genetic surveys and surveys of language use have been manipulated to introduce political racial bias, and modern genetic research has been deliberately misused to promote race myths. That there are Commons administrators that are creating distractions and arguing that we should leave this massive loophole for the manipulation of our sister projects open for political lobbyists and potentially funded bad actors, is a surprise and hard to understand, considering how serious instances could destroy any trust in Commons as a source for correctly copyrighted and correctly described images.

Just consider how serious it would be if the diagrams of COVID19 pandemic that are hosted here and used by Wikipedias in all languages, and subsequently massively relied on by journalists around the world, turned out to be covertly spreading deliberately faked data to make some countries artificially look better than others... --Fæ (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Fæ makes a further good point. Very easy to use filenames as subtle vandalism. The point about Wikimedia generally as a "reliable source" is also pertinent and well made. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Yet every wording in the file name belongs to the description. If the filename is good then he should move to the description. Regarding to the scientific racism. It should not be accepted in file name. It may be considerd in {{Original description}} (if it comes from original caption). -- Geagea (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Interface admin action needed

Could an interface admin update entry for Minorax in MediaWiki:Gadget-markAdmins-data.js? They have been an admin since yesterday. --jdx ^Re: 12:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jdx: It's regularly maintained by Krd. -- CptViraj (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, every day precisely at 13:00 (UTC). It's almost as if he were a machine.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe Krdbot is the real user and Krd is a bot? :) --E4024 (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

updated description of video with deletion request

The creator of the video updated informations and license of File:Festwagen der Brauerei Bender auf dem Weg zur Begrüßung des Deutschen Fußballweltmeisters 1954 und Maimarkt.ogv. We talked via de:Wikipedia:Telefonberatung and hope, the video can be used in this way and the deletion template could be deleted now. Regards for help, Conny (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC).

Closing of controversial DR by a non-admin

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gay anal sex.jpg was closed ("twice") by a user who was recently given autopatrolled rights. I do not want to complain about them (I know the correct platform). I do not want them to be warned either. I only want/ask/demand that this DR be closed by an admin as it deserves. I have no intentions to discuss the contents of it again; but the closing declaration is false. The DR does not belong to me. Another user brought other supporting argument that clearly broke even more the already non-existing consensus, so closing the DR was certainly arbitrary and hence wrong. As I said I will not discuss the DR here, I will not respond if anybody wishes to discuss anything. I simply request one of our admins that s/he should re-open this discussion. If they deem it right they can close it immediately afterwards or leave for another admin to decide. Repeat: This was a controversial DR which cannot be closed by a non-admin. (I myself closed many DRs without being an admin and never anybody said a word about them...) --E4024 (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• While re-closing the discussion after their closure had been reverted is unwise, I would not have closed the discussion with a different result. Accordingly, I see no reason to overturn the closure. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Once again, I invite @E4024 to justify their comments; I also invite others to clarify the word “controversial”. Here’s what I think. Say user A writes something generic, which has already been dealt with in the previous DRs. Then user B replies to user A, saying that user A is wrong. Then a month passes and user A doesn’t post again. This does not make the DR “controversial”. Brianjd (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that those who think it is bad quality make a better photo and upload that instead :-)

Anyway I do not think that a photo has to be used to be in scope. Given the small number of images we have of that kind I would also close it as keep and based on the number of "keep" in the DR I would say it is non-controversial to close it. --MGA73 (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I can even imagine where to find the models. Do not mock people. The move was called "unwise" and that was the end of this discussion. I said I would not come back but I also cannot accept this kind of behaviour. Hope never to see you again. E4024 (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@E4024: It’s not nice, to put it likely, to drag a user over to AN, then refuse to participate in relevant discussion. You claimed, both in the DR and multiple times here, that it was controversial. Another admin (MGA73) here said it was not controversial, and you have ignored this. Brianjd (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Błąd w nazwie obrazu i w przypisaniu do kategorii

Przeglądając fotografie zabytków z Kalwarii Zebrzydowskiej znalazłam błędnie opisane i błędnie przypisane zdjęcie. Jest to plik: File:Kaplica (kościół) Ukrzyżowania, 1600-1601, 1623.jpg w kategorii "Chapel of the Crucifixion in Kalwaria Zebrzydowska". W rzeczywistości zdjęcie przedstawia kaplicę (kościół) Trzeciego Upadku (inny tytuł) i powinno się znajdować w kategorii "Chapel of the Third Falling in Kalwaria Zebrzydowska". Są tam zresztą inne zdjęcia obu obiektów, można sobie porównać... Kto może poprawić taki błąd? Czy to miejsce jest odpowiednie do takich zgłoszeń? (Błędów podobnego rodzaju jest więcej w tym dziale, ten zgłaszam przykładowo) Pliszka (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ankry and Jarekt: Could you have a look at this please? De728631 (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Eriassim: Opis zdjęcia może poprawić każdy; uprawnień wymaga zmiana nazwy. Ale w tym celu składa się wniosek dodając u góry strony szablon:

{{Rename|nowa_nazwa|3|szczegółowy opis powodu zmiany nazwy, jeśli potrzebny}}

Kod "3" oznacza zmianę nazwy z powodu błędu, np. takiego, jaki opisujesz. Ankry (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jarekt (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Oznaczenie zabytku rejestrowanego blokuje wyświetlanie opisu zdjęcia w przeglądarce

Witam! Nie mam doświadczenia ze stronami internetowymi, a chcę wziąć udział w konkursie "Wiki lubi zabytki". Przesłałam kilkanaście plików zwyczajnie przez stronę Wikimedia, a potem jeszcze dwa przez stronę konkursową, gdzie miałam możność dodania numeru identyfikacyjnego zabytku. Podpatrzywszy potem składnię polecenia w edytorze, wstawiłam do opisów innych zdjęć coś takiego: Template:Zabytek nieruchomy - tu pionowa kreska i odpowiedni numer. (No tak, dwa nawiasy tu zamieniły się na Template :) W opisach pojawiły się eleganckie znaczki zabytków, co jest wymogiem w konkursie. I jak dotąd wszystko było super.

Ale gdy się wylogowałam i chciałam zobaczyć, jak moje zdjęcia wyglądają w przeglądarce niezalogowanego użytkownika (to znaczy tam, gdzie na czarnym tle wyświetlić można kolejne zdjęcia z przewijaniem),okazało się, że zamiast tytułu w jednej wersji językowej (a mam polską i angielską) wyświetla się tekst: "Ta fotografia przedstawia zabytek wpisany do rejestru zabytków pod numerem ID" - i tyle. Nawet numeru już nie ma. Próbowałam zmieniać położenie tej wstawki o zabytku nieruchomym, ale rezultat był tylko taki, że tekst "Ta fotografia przedstawia..." pokazywał się raz w przeglądarce ustawionej na język polski, raz na angielski. Najlepszy rezultat w przeglądarce osiągnęłam, gdy dodałam język francuski i po fikcyjnym opisie "francuskim" dałam wstawkę o zabytku nieruchomym. Tylko że wtedy na stronie z pełnym opisem zdjęcia pojawiła się niedorzeczna informacja o opisie po "francusku", a przecież nie o to mi chodzi... I pewno mój niby-francuski opis się nie wyświetlał w przeglądarce, ale tego już nie sprawdzałam. Czy jest jakiś błąd w składni, który powoduje, że właściwy opis się nie wyświetla w przeglądarce? Może "wizard" z "Wiki lubi zabytki" coś pomija? Mam za mało wiedzy, żeby to poprawić, może chodzi o jakiś mały znaczek, którego brakuje... a ja nawet nie potrafię nazywać elementów, o których mówię. Próbowałam poszukać czegoś o HTML w Wiki, ale nie dam rady bez pomocy tego ogarnąć. Podaję linki do kilku moich zdjęć z różnym położeniem informacji o zabytku:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kalwaria_Zebrzydowska_-_Bazylika-002GP_01.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kalwaria_Zebrzydowska_-_Bazylika-003GP.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kalwaria_Zebrzydowska_-_Kapliczka_%C5%9Bw._Piotra_i_Paw%C5%82a_01GP_01.jpg

Proszę o jakąś wskazówkę. Pliszka (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Pliszka, Próbowałem odtworzyć sytuacje którą opisujesz, wiec się wylogowałam i poszedłem do pliku File:Kalwaria_Zebrzydowska_-_Bazylika-002GP_01.jpg. Tam znalazłem "Ta fotografia przedstawia zabytek wpisany do rejestru zabytków pod numerem ID 620046". Nie widzę żadnych problemów z tą stroną. Także lepszym miejscem na pytania w języku polskim jest strona Commons:Bar. Także jak chcesz to pytaj na mojej stronie User talk:Jarekt. Przepraszam ze nie bylem w stanie pomoc. Pozdrowienia --Jarekt (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Can someone who can edit Mediawiki-namespace add Finnish translation to MediaWiki:Common.js (in it place, where is in english "This image rendered as PNG in other widths") a following Finnish translation: "tämä kuva PNG:nä muissa ko’oissa". Thanks. Jnovikov (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

German speaking user?

Hi! Could a German speaking user have a look at File:Kailash Sankhala with Jim.jpg. I found a photo at https://www.bild-video-ton.ch/bestand/objekt/Sozarch_F_5097-Fc-002 and asked "Schweizerisches Sozialarchiv" about it and they send me a scan of the backside of the photo (uploaded to the file). So I think the photographer donated the photo to them. The rules for usage can be seen here https://www.sozialarchiv.ch/archiv/benutzung/nutzungsbestimmungen/#c325 and I can see "Creative Commons CC0" there but perhaps someone can have a look so we are sure if we can use the file or not? There is of course still the possibility that the uploader is the original photographer because the photo is pretty high res and there is no watermark. --MGA73 (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: I've checked this and unfortunately it had to be deleted. The CC0 licence at Schweizerisches Sozialarchiv is only valid for any metadata present in their archives but not for photographs and videos as such. "If investigations concerning the right of use need to be undertaken, this has to be done by the user." So we have to assume that this image is non-free. Unfortunately there is no information about the age of the photo at the Swiss website, so without any more background knowledge we can't determine whether it qualifies for {{PD-India-photo-1958}} or {{PD-India}}. By the looks of it I would date this to the mid-1950's, but we need solid evidence to keep it. Anyhow, it was certainly not taken by the uploader. De728631 (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --MGA73 (talk) 12:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Delete porn attack crap madness

I think we could do without the contributions of this guy. --Palosirkka (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Tagged. --Túrelio (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Gone --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Edits of Gadget-LicenseReview.js

Hi! We need someone help maintain the LicenseReview-script. The script is important for license reviewers and we have a huge pile of files to review in Category:License review needed. So we need any help we can get to make the job easier for reviewers. I have suggested some edits on MediaWiki talk:Gadget-LicenseReview.js. I could make them myself but I would prefer not to assign new user rights to myself and implement my own suggestions. So if someone could either make the changes or make a comment that the edits look fine or assign me some user rights to change it? Or at least say "Don't worry go fix it" :-) --MGA73 (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi MGA73, please apply for the interface admin right at COM:BN which is granted rather easily and then boldly edit the script. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: thanks. Done. I was thinking of template editor (doh!) but you are right MediaWiki need an interface admin. I guess I need a tick mark in "Make no mistakes" ;-)

If anyone wanna help improve the LicenseReview-script they are still very welcome to do so. --MGA73 (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Spammer

Here. --Palosirkka (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Blocked. Materialscientist (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

OTRS and JarektBot

I'm rather confused by the activity of the bot. After the OTRS team verified a ticket which included four files (one of the files, as example), JarektBot added the data claim for OTRS. However it has since removed that for all the four in the batch and I don't know why. Gwenhope (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Jarekt as operator.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gwenhope and Jeff G.: My bot added about 1M of those. Unfortunately some files got 2 identical statement, so I had to come a second time and correct it. Right now File:2020-Aug-14 Moundview Neighborhood Cedar Rapids IA Muller IowaWatch.jpg seem to be correct. --Jarekt (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jarekt: thanks. The bots actions confused me and I just wanted to make sure it was working properly and the files were properly attached to their OTRS vetting. Gwenhope (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Deletion discussions - yet again still open after (at least) 4 months

Morning all. I come here again re the somewhat lackadaisical actions of the admins here when it comes to deletion discussions, for example one here which I have contributed on. Why is it taking upwards of 4 months plus to close discussions? Do the admins here need a proverbial bargepole to shove them to the back of the DR queue so they can start from there? Nightfury (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nightfury:  Closed by CptViraj. Kindly temper your fury and cease and desist from insulting Admins. They are volunteers with limited resources.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: That wasn't intended as an insult, more constructive criticism than anything. My boss always said to me that if you start from the back and closed at least 10 down a day, in no time you will reach the front. Maybe the same analogy is needed here.... Nightfury (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I tried to upload a photo, but it didn't let me

Hello! So i wanted to contribute to wikipedia (I've never had an account before and wanted to add a photo so i had to make an account) and it didn't let me for some reason. I wanted to add the photo to https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A9tfej%C5%B1_karizom I tried to upload it here too but again it didn't let me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecoolcrab (talk • contribs) 09:18, 9 September 2020‎ (UTC)

@Thecoolcrab: Hi, and welcome. I am sorry to inform you that you have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/153 by trying to cross-wiki upload a smaller (<50,000 bytes or <2,000,000 pixels) jpg photo as a new user while leaving the summary intact. The photo you tried to upload is smaller, and you indicated it's your own work. Usually when someone uploads a smaller photo, it is a copyright violation taken from the web. If you took the photo yourself, please upload the full-size original of it, including EXIF metadata. If you did not take the photo, please see Commons:Licensing for why we can't accept it, and have the photographer post Commons:Licensing compliant permission for such work on their website or social media presence or send the photo and permission via OTRS with a carbon copy to you. If you change the summary or use our Upload Wizard instead, you should be able to avoid that filter.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Why is this discussion still taking place? No-one has commented for over a month, yet for all its brevity, it has not yet been closed. Merci! 07:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Taivo (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Oversighters

Hello all. As all of our oversighters are from Europe (probably a +1 timezone), there is a time frame where they'll be no response from them to OS something. As such, I'd like to ask if anyone is keen to take on the role of an oversighter. Preferably someone with a negative timezone. --Minorax^talk 04:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Minorax: I am, in EDT.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 07:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: From the COM:OS policy, oversighters must (should?) be admins. --Minorax^talk 14:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Minorax: If you want a quicker respond, contact a Steward, per COM:OS. 1989 (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@1989: The problem is that not all stewards want to do it. --Minorax^talk 14:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Well this is a volunteer thing, after all. If one won't do it, then surely someone else will. See m:Oversight policy for options. 1989 (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Minorax: I can help out if there's still a need. UTC-7 here. clpo13_(talk) 19:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy

Would somebody Speedy G1 these? --Palosirkka (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

 Deleted. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat ^{[ contribs | talk ]} 14:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Deleting Files

I uploaded a file for reference and now I want to remove it. It meets the terms of fast deletion because it has a copyright problem. Can we delete the file? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ottoman_Empire_Largest_Borders_Map.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zweikaiserproblem (talk • contribs) 22:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

 Deleted by AntiCompositeNumber. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat ^{[ contribs | talk ]} 01:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

DR close request

Can an admin review Commons:Deletion requests/File:Azeridus.jpg and close the discussion? The last comment was made over a month ago by an IP who hasn't edited Commons at all since then. The file is question has an {{PermissionOTRS}} template, but an OTRS volunteer (Ww2censor) has commented that the OTRS ticket makes no mention of the photo and also pointed out that the original uploader has been banned per COM:SOCK; so, any further clarification from the original uploader seems highly unlikely. It's fine if this is an OTRS matter, but in that case OTRS volunteers should sort it out among themselves since they're the only ones who can see the actual ticket. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Gbawden (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Gbawden. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Date problem

I don't know where is the topic for identification problem, transfer to the correct topic if I was wrong, but I would report a problem : for this picture file:Устинов и Брежнев.jpg, I don't find the precise link that said it was taken on year 1982, even on the source and google. It's important because this picture is frequently used for wiki for Breznhzv funeral, labelled articles.--Promauteur1 (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

 Comment Now the date is changed, now 1979. Taivo (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Unblock Lesja Kuolčárová, please

Hello, I'd like to ask you to unblock Lesja Kuolčárová. The account previously had an inappropriate username, but I just renamed it, so it can be unblocked. Thanks, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done --AFBorchert (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Wanting to Know Reason for Deletion

The file File:Westport-cropped.jpg was deleted a couple years ago. I haven't been able to find any reason in the logs or by checking "What Links Here..". I wanted to know why it was deleted. The deleting admin was desysoped a year ago and is no longer active on here. Help would be appreciated. -- Veggies (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The image depicted a mural in Missouri State Capitol. Assuming the painting was still in copyright and no FoP-exception in the US, it might have been deleted as a suspected copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Túrelio: Thanks. Was it tagged, or just deleted out of the blue?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 21:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: . It seems to have been deleted "out of the blue" 2 days after upload. --Túrelio (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI: The painting was done in 1920 by painter N.C. Wyeth, who died in 1945. I'm not an expert on the copyright rules here but I believe that coheres with the 70+ years since death and published-before-1925 rules. That's why I want to know why/how it was deleted. Was it tagged? Was there a discussion at all or was it simply deleted outright? -- Veggies (talk) 03:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Veggies: It doesn't matter, please post that info to COM:UDR.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 03:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Veggies: No, it hadn't been tagged before deletion. However, the original description didn't have any information about the painter. So, per COM:PCP (based on: US, indoor, not too old looking painting) it was o.k. to request its deletion, though, a deletion-discussion would have been the better way. --Túrelio (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Overwriting images

I just noticed that @MaxxL: is overwriting images uploaded by other users. I don't think the uploads are in lone with: Commons:Overwriting existing files. I bring it up here because if it is an issue, MaxxL should stop it. If it's not an issue, I won't say anything else. Here are two examples (look at the history):

• File:Wappen von Roetgen.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:AUT Groß-Enzersdorf COA.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Evrik (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• It is definitely an issue. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• All my overwritings since 14 years followed the COM:CROP guidelines especially better quality by higher resolution and colour corrections according the FIAV colour recommendations. What is wrong suddenly? -- MaxxL - talk 08:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• I quite agree with @MaxxL: . Why is it a problem for you @Tuvalkin: and @Evrik: ? You both never upload CoA! We dicuss problems in the Wappenwerkstatt (COA workshop). I invite you to do this there. Its seems to be a special Coa problem for you!?! Nobody talks about overwrite pictures generally. --Jürgen Krause (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Jürgen Krause: So, I never uploaded a CoA to Commons therefore I have no business in criticising others’ interpretation of COM:OVERWRITE and in sharing opinions about Heraldry images, you say with vehement punctuation?… Well, I think I have a good grasp of COM:OVERWRITE based i.a. in my many Commons uploads of cropped images, and as for my Heraldry credentials, well… just go here. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Jürgen Krause: Oh, and your invitation to discuss Commons’ images in the German Wikipedia? No, thanks. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• @MaxxL: Nothing is wrong suddenly — and if you have really been doing a lot of these overwritings, then those need to be reverted and uploaded as separate images. At least the two uploads in question fail to adhere to any of the guidlines stated in COM:CROP, and the FIAV name dropping is ludicrous (hey, I met Željko Heimer in 1996, therefore I win?): Not only FIAV’s color recommendation focus on flag colors, not CoA colors (that’s what the "V" stands for — Vexillology), but also FIAV’s color recommendations are descriptive, not prescriptive: In fact, you don’t get to overwrite a given rendering of a CoA with a different one and cloak yourself under the cape of established Emblematics scholarship, which enshrines the notion that heraldic devices are essentially their blazon, not any specific rendering — official as it may be. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• If (and it’s a big "if") these newer images are renderings that follow official graphical prescriptions issued by the armigerous entity, and if the filename in question is standartized to show the current/best image (as in the case of File:Flag of Libya.svg, see history) — then these overwrites are warrented, but the overwritten image must be reuploaded with a different name and all affluent links must be analysed to check which should link to each of the two images. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• File:Wappen Wanfried.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

@MaxxL: Please top what you are doing. Evrik (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I think, that now is the time to nominate you @Evrik: , for vandalism. We work for wikipedia since over ten years, mostly in heraldic things and we don't need guys like you, who ignores any argument in this case. --Jürgen Krause (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jürgen Krause: is that a threat? Please do. Evrik (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Jürgen Krause and MaxxL: If you’ve been doing this kind of overwrites for over 10 years and cannot even start to understand how that is wrong, on both heraldic and wiki-editing grounds, then your work needs to be throughly evaluated with urgency. (That evaluation should consider also other factors, such as copyright and attribution.) It would be neat of you stop threatning Evrik, least you be disciplined for that, too. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• It appears that @MaxxL: is now going back and reverting any of the reversions I have made. This, File:Wappen Wanfried.png is an example. Evrik (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Request: Admin action is required in this section. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Independent opinions requested for the removal of FR rights for Tm

Commons:Requests_for_rights#Tm

User_talk:Tm#Map_renames

Parties @Tm and Pi.1415926535:

Requesting some independent views from administrators on whether Pi's action should be reversed. Suggest it's best not to rehash the evidence here, there's quite a lot about Tm's edits and Pi's "unique" understanding of COM:FR on Tm's talk page above. Doubts of the fairness or appropriateness of this action are based on Pi's own controversial moves explicitly against policy, calling their judgement about how others may exercise the move right into question.

In order to demonstrate that Pi.1415926535's understanding of the renaming guidelines is causing an issue, here is a list of recent moves that strip identity numbers from filenames, arbitrarily removing Flickr photo id numbers or Library of Congress LCCNs despite these being well established as the norm for batch uploads and should be retained by the harmonization requirement of the guideline. None is an upload by Pi and some have been hosted on this project for several years before the rename and are part of batch uploads with project pages that define a naming convention, including the unique reference in the filename:

Addendum I notice that in addition to Pi.1415926535 stripping photo or image unique references, the extension names from the LOC batch project have been systematically changed by Pi.1415926535 from ".tif" to ".tiff". This is a potentially serious housekeeping issue as the files in that batch project have a deliberately strict naming convention as both "jpg" and "tif" versions have been uploaded to cater for WMF server thumbnail rendering problems. Haphazardly changing extensions risks breaking current or future gallery creation and long term housekeeping tasks, such as refreshing metadata from the LOC API. These are bad file moves, and fail to follow the deliberately conservative guidelines that minimize disruption to this project and our sister projects. --Fæ (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fæ: I agree that those are bad renames due to removal of standard Flickr and LCCN identifiers.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 07:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fæ: I remain silent on the .tif to tiff rename, as I do not fully understand the issue. I do however think that the renames (and removal of standard Flickr and LCCN identifiers) are beneficial. File titles should be human readable and understandable. Imho there is no need for identifiers in the file title; it's sufficient if they are in the file description. --Schlurcher (talk) 07:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Whereas I have my own oppionion on this, please also note Pi.1415926535 comment on Commons:Requests_for_rights#Tm Those that I originally objected to were adding a flickr image number to files that I had overwritten with a full-resolution version from a non-flickr source - thus adding a completely meaningless number to the end of these filenames - without any reasoning given in the rename., which add another argument for removing the identifiers here. I have checked the files in the box above giving details on File moves by Pi.1415926535, and found indeed that 1) a full version was uploaded from another source, 2) the description was updated to the new source and 3) then the rename was performed. This further background should be taken into consideration. --Schlurcher (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Schlurcher: Thanks, I was not aware of that.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 07:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Just to be super clear, the example at Commons:Requests_for_rights#Tm shows in detail that Pi was overwriting a Flickr photo that Tm originally uploaded seven years ago. Pi then renamed the file and chose to arbitrarily drop the FlickrID that was in the filename at the time of upload. Tm correctly restored the FlickrID for traceability, without changing any of the descriptive part of the filename that Pi had added. Pi then reverted that change, and ultimately used their sysop authority to remove Tm's access to renaming.

That, very simply put, is using sysop rights when you are involved and appears misuse to force your non-standard personal views on other volunteers.

The track record here of Pi's actions is appalling. --Fæ (talk) 08:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I do disagree on this part. I'm looking forward to hear further opinions and I appreciate that you seek further input as well. Again note that Pi seem to have removed the right because of He re-moved one file after being reverted by User:Veliensis; such wheel-warring is grounds for immediate revocation per COM:FRNOT.. Something that is explicitly mentioned in Commons:File renaming: Warning: certain cases of wheel-warring—such as reversal of a preceding renaming which had a valid reason—may result in removal of the filemover privilege even for one infraction. see Commons:Requests_for_rights#Tm --Schlurcher (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The evidence here seems to pile up that this was a controversial action from whatever angle you look at it. The request being made is to restore Tm's move rights, and an independent admin can assess the evidence. Based on what I have read so far, including researching the last two months of Pi's moves, I would recommend trout slaps for both parties, and they can steer clear of each other and hopefully be seen to be exceedingly conservative in their interpretations of COM:FR. Both have long track records of good and valued contributions.

Unfortunately as an administrator, it would be hard to imagine the outcome of a case where the community would remove Pi's access to the move right, without it having to become a desysop vote, an outcome that I would consider highly undesirable and rather stupid. --Fæ (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

First, none of these renames are prohibited. Fæ and some other editors are of the opinion that removing Flickr image numbers from files is undesirable, but there is no policy to that effect. I remove most source ID numbers when I am making a rename for other reasons (like replacing meaningless names with descriptive names) because I believe that human readability of filenames is more important than duplicating the source field. Years ago there was a discussion about the file rename criteria that concluded that renames solely to remove flickr image numbers were disallowed; I respect that consensus and do not make renames for that purpose. I fail to see how renaming "File:Wavy Tracks (18343921510).jpg" (a name that contains literally no information for the average user) to "File:Commuter rail tracks at Sullivan Square station, June 2015.jpg" (a name that contains essential subject and date information) is an issue.

Second, the specific moves listed here where I removed solely a number were because that number no longer is related to the file whatsoever. The versions available on flickr are lower resolution than the version available from the actual source (2,000px versus ~10,000px) and have an incorrect license (CC BY versus the correct PD-US-expired). I replaced the flickr link in the file description with the link for the actual source - so why on earth would we keep the flickr number in the filename? To 99.9% of the people who ever see that image in categories or search, that number means nothing.

Third, and most importantly, this is a blatant attempt by Fæ to distract from the actual reasons why I removed Tm's filemover right, and thus derail any real conversation about whether my removal was correct. I removed it for dozens of unexplained reversions of moves by Richardkiwi and other users (in at least one case, twice), refusal to use move edit summaries especially when reverting moves, and refusal to reply to talk page queries about his moves. Tm's changes to my moves and refusal to respond to my query were merely what alerted me to this wider issue. As Schlurcher noted above, and I have noted elsewhere, the first of those is explicitly listed as a reason for immediate revocation of filemover rights. Tm's two reversions of my objection to a proposed move, and his statement on his talk page that he does not feel obligated to use edit summaries or reply to talk page messages, indicate that he continues to believe that his word is absolute and not to be questioned. While perhaps I should have asked for an outside opinion before removing the right, I believe that Tm's attitude and his recent move history argues strongly against restoring it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

1. I agree you should have asked for an outside opinion. An option that I put to you, and you chose to ignore.
2. With regard to removing unique id numbers like FlickrID and Library of Congress numbers, this is absolutely bizarre. There is no consensus to support you removing these from files (such as mine) which have been correctly uploaded with these in the filenames and have been hosted here for years. It is a ridiculous stance to take to so vigorously defend your changes to arbitrarily "dis-harmonize" the standard names in batch upload projects to suit your personal tastes, not guidelines. Your actions are disruptive and non-collegiate. It is you that is doing this to other people's long hosted uploads without discussion, not myself or Tm.
3. If you want to see how useful Flickr photo identities are, then plug one into the handy link http://flickr.com/photo.gne?id= which takes any ID and gives you the restored link. It is plainly unhelpful and non-standard to blank these from the filenames that others have chosen for their uploads.
4. Were these your uploads, sure knock yourself out. In the meantime stop throwing around your weight as an admin, you look like a bully. --Fæ (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• I’m confused: The section title and the OP suggest this is about whether Tm’s FR flag should be reinstated after being ticked off by Pi.1415926535, yet the discussion veered to focus on Pi.1415926535’s doubtful file renamings. Looks like this section should be closed with a swift and trivial decision in favour of giving back Tm their flag and the next steps should be the evaluation of Pi.1415926535’s doubtful file renamings, now under its own heading, and of Pi.1415926535’s misuse of admin tools. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• To establish a consensus on the general issue, which will then help anyone assess Tm's actions to re-add unique identities to the filenames of their own uploads, and Pi's actions to remove identities from other folk's chosen filenames, there's an independent discussion of the guidelines at Commons:Village pump#Removing reference and identification numbers from file names set by their uploader. --Fæ (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The supermajority view confirms this reading of COM:FR:

Verifiable references or unique identification numbers in file names created at the time of original upload, should never be removed without a consensus, and if part of a batch upload project, or part of standard naming using an upload tool, the entire project should retain its "harmonious" naming standard to enable easier searching, verification and necessary housekeeping.

--Fæ (talk) 07:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Actions by Fæ correcting Pi.1415926535's moves

Logging my move actions here, because as an administrator, it is quite possible that Pi.1415926535 will continue to misinterpret COM:FR and initiate sanctions against my account, even when supported by official guidelines. There is no requirement on me as the uploader to discuss these restorations with Pi, but there was a requirement on them to discuss their 'dis-harmonization' of the standard file names which has disrupted the batch upload project.

1. File:Passenger train at Middleborough station, December 1940 or January 1941.tiff moved to File:Passenger train at Middleborough station, December 1940 or January 1941 LCCN2017877364.tif

   This corrective action restored the LCCN standard reference which was present in the original upload in 2018. Unfortunately now Pi has arbitrarily changed the extension from ".tif" to ".tiff" standard tools to restore the original extension fail, this was achieved by a more complex workflow which made a mess of the move logs in this case.

2. File:Passenger train at Middleborough station, December 1940 or January 1941.jpg moved to File:Passenger train at Middleborough station, December 1940 or January 1941 LCCN2017877364.jpg

   Corrective action to restore the LCCN present in 2018 upload.

3. File:Amtrak HHP8 testing at TTCI.tiff moved to File:Amtrak HHP8 testing at TTCI LCCN2011633261.tif

   Restore LCCN used correctly when uploaded in 2016 and original extension ".tif" applied.

4. File:1887 bird's eye view map of Highlandville, Massachusetts.tiff moved to File:1887 bird's eye view map of Highlandville, Massachusetts LOC 74693296.tif

   Restore Library of Congress reference and extension, as applied on upload in 2018.

5. File:Plymouth station in 1889 advertising book (14574529648).jpg

   Restore photo ID, as used on the 2015 upload. This was from the Internet Archive Flickrstream.

6. File:1882 bird's-eye view map of Plymouth, Massachusetts LOC 2011589144.tif

   Restore Library of Congress reference and extension, as uploaded in 2018 as part of LOC maps.

7. File:Federal Street during snow, March 2017 (Unsplash D3M9PyOeY90).jpg

   Restore Unsplash unique ID, as uploaded in 2017.

8. File:Boston YMCA from 1914 course catalog (14760486756).jpg

   Restore PhotoID as uploaded in 2015. Part of Internet Archive Flickrstream.

9. File:Muni 1080 at 17th Street and Castro, May 2012 LCCN2013630346.tif

   Restore Library of Congress LCCN. This is part of a key collection for Commons, both culturally (pride flags in a gay district) and legally with the background of Highsmith vs. Getty Images.

Drawing a line after initial/exemplar cases. Many more restoration moves to repair the 'disharmony' by Pi's actions will carry on behind the scenes. Pi is welcome to speak up and volunteer to doing this work instead of others using up their volunteer time. --Fæ (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for review of Pi.1415926535's continuing use of File Move rights

Having carefully examined Pi's move actions since the start of 2019, there are hundreds of inappropriate file moves, made without advance discussion, that blank other users' original use of unique references from the filenames. Uploaders especially affected appear to include @Geo Swan, Tm, and Fæ: , though this is based on a visual check, not an analytical report. It is highly likely that these inappropriate moves date back years before that. If there is interest in having specific numbers, I can do a little more work on the analysis. Of these moves in the last year and a half, there are 62 files that are my uploads that need correction, some of which have been corrected as examples in the prior subsection.

In all cases these moves by blanking references, break the harmony of naming, the convention included in COM:FR and confirmed by community consensus to be the normal reading of FR.

Given that despite the evidence, @Pi.1415926535: has refused to gain alternative views on their admin action to remove Tm's right to move files, when Tm's moves related to fixing the blanking of references from file names, and that Pi has evaded stating that they will stop their disruptive moves, I request sysop action to either remove Pi.1415926535's access to move rights or gain a commitment from Pi.1415926535 to cease these activities and preferably volunteer to repair the files they have blanked identification information from.

In addition, as Pi.1415926535's sysop action to remove Tm's move right appears controversial, sysop action is requested to restore it on a presumption of good faith. If there is a case to remove Tm's move right it should be raised as a separate case, the evidence can then be presented clearly without the confusion of the poor interpretation of COM:FR, or the incorrect justification of their own actions that Pi has presented throughout.

Update - a bit more analysis shows these uploader accounts have all had more than 100 file moves of this identity blanking type by Pi.1415926535:

• 206 Mackensen
• 123 Flickr upload bot
• 197 File Upload Bot
• 144 Tdorante10
• 112 Geo Swan
• 111 Fæ

More detailed part sorted list showing all with 10 or more moves

Summary count of renames by Pi.1415926535 by name of original uploader account. 206 Mackensen 123 Flickr upload bot 197 File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) 144 Tdorante10 112 Geo Swan 111 Fæ 37 ArnoldReinhold 34 Panoramio upload bot 15 AnankeBot 34 Pi1415926535 44 DanTD 10 Kobac 42 M2545 58 BotMultichillT 19 BotMultichill 21 Pedro Xing 14 David Ludwig 23 MechQuester 10 Piotrus 17 Cjophoto96 13 CaribDigita 26 SPUI~commonswiki 10 Navigator84 10 Tony.naar 10 JosephBarillari~commonswiki 20 OceanAtoll 18 Another Believer 10 Lexcie 73 Mliu92 12 SlimVirgin 54 King TransitMA 12 Lar 54 SecretName101 14 AEMoreira042281 15 Daderot 12 Found5dollar 13 Ktr101 28 Ser Amantio di Nicolao

Tool accounts like Magnus' File Upload Bot, use a standard naming schema with PhotoID that should be retained for the same reasons as raised in the VP discussion. Different schemas apply by tool, so BotMultichillT appears to apply the Flickrstream name, which has been removed by Pi during moves, presumably for personal taste rather than a legitimate COM:FR rationale. These tools have been heavily relied on by users like Tm for many years. In the case of Magnus' tool, this includes the name of the directing account in the upload comment file history and this could be used to provide a more specific breakdown were that needed.

Moves like in March 2020 of File:Salem MBTA Station td (2018-12-01) 051.jpg, an own work upload by Tdorante10, have had the photographer's index number removed, and this was never included in the image page description, so the original sequence, as might be used to identify related images of the same or nearby subjects, is effectively lost.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not an administrator on Commons, but I am (apparently) the user most affected by these moves. In the absence of a formal policy governing such moves I would say that the title of a file strikes me as in inappropriate place for such indexing because it has no context. I would think human-readable names are preferable. If bulk-uploader tools rely on metadata to do their work then surely the place for that data is somewhere in the file description page. I have no concerns about Pi.1415926535 retaining the filemover right. Mackensen (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that all the moves on your uploads are reverted automatically. Neither has anyone suggested that the "human-readable" title improvements are removed from any file. With respect to the standard implementation of the official guideline of COM:FR, the onus is on the file mover to ensure that blanking of references is agreed or correctly discussed in advance rather than arbitrarily blanking because of personal taste, or because the file name may look a "bit better". Please review the VP discussion linked above for details and a discussion of how exceptions are handled. --Fæ (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 Info The discussion of restoration of Tm's rights was first discussed here: Commons:Requests_for_rights#Tm. In an attempt to keep the discussion focused I would advise to keep this part of the discussion there. --Schlurcher (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• I upload lots of images from flickr, and I strongly support the inclusion of the unique flickr ID that flinfo and flickr2commons embed in the filename. No one likes to start uploading a flickr image, only to find it has already been uploadeded, using a name that did not include the unique flickr-id. The unique flickr ID is extremely useful. To whatever extent Pi is removing those qualifiers, for purely aesthetic reasons, he or she should stop. Geo Swan (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

DR waiting for a long time in the queue

Hi there. Can one of you close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ch Moazzam Ishaq - Pakistani artist, filmmaker and actor.jpg the way you believe it has to be closed? The uploader/subject of the image is getting nervous and doing things which are not so correct like this. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Gbawden (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Wiki.png

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T262628

The page was full-protected against creation in 2014, I don't understand how SamDadvand was able to import? Strange!!! -- CptViraj (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, FileImporter allows users to import the file even if it is protected on Commons. After testing it on File:ExampleForImportProtection.jpg, I created phab:T262628. Ahmad^talk 00:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ahmad252: Aha, Thanks :) -- CptViraj (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@CptViraj: deleting the image left a lot of red links on wikiprojects. There is nothing that prevents wikiprojects from having their own file. --MGA73 (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: Huh? Sorry, I can't understand what you are saying. I'm en-2 so surely my bad. -- CptViraj (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@CptViraj: I just noticed that according to Special:GlobalUsage/Wiki.png many pages used wiki.png. --MGA73 (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The file was deleted and protected in 2014 but due to Move to Commons tool error a user was able to create it. Wiki.png is supposed to be uploaded locally in sisterprojects as the file should be different in every wiki. See logs. -- CptViraj (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:Muntader Saleh

Is Category:Muntader Saleh about self promo? Should be frozen? --E4024 (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

 Info: Yes, and looks like socking: Special:DeletedContributions/Bobyi789. I'm off now, may someone else... --Achim (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Diamond League

The 3 'Calendar' images uploaded from World Athletics to Category:IAAF Diamond League, are they not copyrighted? Ssu (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Likely not: {{Pd-ineligible}} Ruslik0 (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Assistance from a new administrator

A conflict has arisen with the administrator User:Nat because I previously uploaded some images that someone had cataloged them for violation of copyright, and a space for discussion was opened, I previously do not object, if the images do not comply with the conditions of Commons, the Images must be eliminated, the problem is that the administrator is not in the capacity to clearly define and textualize the situation in the clearest possible way to the questions asked [2]. Many users, and I am not referring precisely to me, but not all of us are up to date and totally soaked with the conditions of Commons and other platforms because they are quite a lot and need a lot of reading. But it is annoying and in bad taste that the "administrator" uses bold phrases [3], when Commons itself asks that it not be used COM:TALK, and indirectly uses insults or if they are not to such an extent, at least they offend any user that they treat it that way [4]. --P Cesar Maldonado (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Note This is an attempt to fork an on-going discussion taking place here. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
•  In no way The administrator started the other discussion under another vision. She thinks the opening discussion process was "ridiculous" [5]--P Cesar Maldonado (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@P Cesar Maldonado:  Done, closed by @Эlcobbola, Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 23:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Viewing deleted photos

I guess I should know this - is there a tool to view deleted content? Gbawden (talk)`

@Gbawden: No, admins can view it onwiki. You'll see (view/restore) button in the end of a deletion log of a page you want to view or you can just go to Special:Undelete and type the page name. See this for example, if you want to see text go to Page history section and tap on the timestamp of the revision you want to see and if you want to see file go to File history section and do the same. -- CptViraj (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks thats what I thought Gbawden (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Excessive spam due to sheer number of edits involved in adding structured data

BotMultichill is creating an enormous quantity of watchlist notification email due to its task of adding structured data to apparently every image on Commons. There are several complaints about this on Multichill's talk page so clearly I'm not the only one annoyed. I'm not suggesting this is in any way Multichill's fault or that they have personally done something wrong, but I don't think it's acceptable to generate this quantity of email for a planned, non-urgent task. Could I suggest that in future such tasks be carried on the server side in one go with a database query, or something like that, and a single email per user sent out to notify them? Receiving this large quantity of watchlist emails spread over the course of several days is highly disruptive to people's inboxes and should have been avoided.

I'm aware, having read the discussion, that there is an option to filter bot edits from your watchlist, but that's not something which is widely known. Also I don't believe every single Commons user should be expected to change a setting to mitigate an email storm which was nothing to do with them! Many thanks, GKFX^talk 14:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I myself take the opportunity to add the structured information to the images on my watchlist whenever BotMultichill has done a run and I see my images pop up on y watchlist. The bot picks up all of the metadata of the image, but not (yet?) the subject or the items on display, which is actually the interesting part of combining both the databases of Wikidata and Commons. The bot has been doing more then I could handle the past few days, and maybe the emails could become recognised as spam by the email systems as well, which would not be a good thing.

For the moment, you could turn notification by email off in your settings, but indeed: BotMultichill will be editing 60 million files, so a different solution is welcome. Ciell (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Where, when, and by whom was this task approved? Why is that not noted on the bot's user page?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm looking at bot requests at Commons:Bots/Requests/BotMultichillT, and Commons:Bots/Requests/BotMultichill. I'm not seeing anything about modifying structured data (all the comments are from 2007-2008). --William Graham (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Multichill: Please stop having any of your bots execute unapproved tasks.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 18:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Do you volunteer to add the information manually? If structured data is approved by the community then it is logic that bots will add it if possible. --MGA73 (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: No, but I'm not about to have my bot do it in an unapproved manner, either.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 19:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: One of the purposes of making a bot request is to make sure 1) that operater is able to do the task without messing things up and 2) that the taks is useful. I'm sure crats know what BotMultichill does and I'm sure that if any of them would like for Multichill to make a formal request then they wuld have just asked. I'm also sure that the request would be approved. So there is no reason for you to order Multichill to stop his bot. --MGA73 (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: "Messing things up" can be interpreted rather broadly and I would say that the current email storm counts as messing something up. There was in 2018 a similar discussion at Wikipedia [6] which discussed the total labour cost of bots sending large numbers of messages. In short asking very large numbers of people to read pointless, bot-generated messages is a waste of their valuable time, on the order of thousands of hours of work. For an order-of-magnitude estimate of the value of this human labour, assuming every image gets an edit, 64,145,000 images × 1 second/image average reading time = 17,818 hours of labour, which would cost you £155,000 at the UK minimum wage. That is why these things should be discussed before being set off. GKFX^talk 19:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@GKFX: I do of course not mind that users ask first because thats the standard procedure. But a similar bot Commons:Bots/Requests/SchlurcherBot9 was approved with no problems so I think that demanding a stop is a bit much. I'm sure that there was a discussen about structured data when it was implemented and I think that everyone knew that implementing it would mean that there will be a lot of work and edits. About mails it is possible to disable while the bot works on the files. Things will be crazy for a week, a month or how long it will take to work on the files. --MGA73 (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: , "Things will be crazy for a week, a month or how long it will take to work on the files" is drastically underestimating the disruption this is going to cause. A glance at its contribution history shows that the bot is making about 200 edits per minute. Assuming the bot runs 24/7 without a break (possible), that there are no changes to files/data or additional changes that mean some files need do-overs (unlikely), and that no further images are added to Commons in the meantime (impossible), that means this is going to go on until April 2021 at the earliest. — iridescent 20:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Iridescent: I got it to over 350 edits per minute so my calculations say that it will go faster than what you estimate. Many of the files are uploaded with bots so they will not care about the "spam". I do not know exactly how the bot decide the order to work on the images but I doubt that anyone have all 60M files on their watchlist. Personally I only have 52,853 on my list. So when I said a week or a month or whatever I did that because I assumed that most of us will only be "spammed" for a shorter period of time. After that there will be fewer edits. --MGA73 (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: I did not "order Multichill to stop his bot", I politely requested. In Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo, some may want to opt for daily or weekly summaries of notifications.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 20:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: My bad, I read it as an order. --MGA73 (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

If you have large numbers of items on your watchlist, why on earth are you receiving watchlist emails? Yes that bot is sod-off annoying, and thus I have stopped my watchlist showing bot edits. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

BotMultichillT is doing it, too.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 21:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

How do I remove BotMultichillT from my watch list? I'm pretty sure I *used* to have bots not visible on my watch list years ago... Now there are hundreds of BotMultichillT edits for every other edit, and try as I might I know I'm missing things that shouldn't be overlooked. (I've tried editing my watch list multiple times without success over the past few weeks. I just spent half an hour looking for something to help with watch list editing... which brings up a related point: If there is not a page to help users with their watch list, there should be, and if there is, searching for "Help Watchlist" or "Commons Watchlist" should be able to find it, at least with a redirect.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Infrogmation: I have made Help:Watchlist, as a soft-redirect to the relevant docs on Mediawiki.org. Jean-Fred (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Infrogmation: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist and check "Hide bot edits from the watchlist". Multichill (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I must have missed a ping. I can't alter people's watchlist settings so I can't help them with that. So yes, this will hurt a bit, but it's like pulling off a bandage: It will hurt much longer if you do it slowly. You can see progress at User:Multichill/Structured data progress. Currently we are at around 20M files with license of about a total around 50M. Most will probably be done in about 6 weeks. Multichill (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Setting you preferences right at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist is important. You do not want to get emails about each watchlist change. You should stop watching bots you do not want to see a lot of changes. Also I heard that you can turn of edits of individual users by adding the JavaScript below to your common.js

$(document).ready($('.mw-special-Watchlist .mw-changeslist-line .mw-userlink[href="/wiki/User:BOTNAME"]').parent().parent().css("display", "none"));

Just change BOTNAME to the username of the actual bot. --Jarekt (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Notification of global ban proposal who were active on this wiki (このウィキでアクティブだったグローバル禁止提案の通知)

This is a notification of global ban discussion per the global ban policy.

これは、グローバル禁止ポリシーに基づくグローバル禁止議論に関する通知です。

My regards, SMB99thx uh~~kay!! 📸 06:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

But this account is already globally locked since November 2019.[7] --Túrelio (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but i decided to request for global ban anyway because of someone's comments about Sidowpknbkhihj (Sidowpknbkhihj should be locked on all meta accounts and be banned from creating new accounts, along with his IP address and all his socks should be locked and prevented from account creation!) - which made me realize the extent of the Sidowpknbkhihj's conduct. Also, despite the global lock, one of their socks 台風14号 got away with it until it was found that it's a sock of Sidowpknbkhihj, which means a global lock will not be enough. BTW, i'll also post this on the village pump. SMB99thx uh~~kay!! 📸 09:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Advice request regarding bot

A while ago I wanted to upload pictures to a category concerning Göreme in Cappadocia, Turkey. To my amazement I found hundreds of pathetically bad pictures, imported from Flickr. They were the result of a day’s visit by some tourist from Taiwan, who travelled the region. Apart from the pictures being bad and silly (my opinion), they were all thrown into one (and later I found, two, the same collection was used twice) categories, whereas they were from many places all over the vast region. I wanted to get them out of the way, and created a category “Category:Göreme seen on the move” where I put these 310 pictures. Today I contemplated adding pictures to category “Category:Ancient Roman theatre in Hierapolis” and found another 256 pictures by the same tourist, totally overshadowing the pictures of the theatre itself. In both cases it seems the bot involved was User:FlickreviewR 2. I confess that many of the functions of bots are still unknown to me, and I myself often make mistakes. But I wonder if this bot does not cause more harm that benefits, dropping so many pictures in the wrong spots. I do not exclude that the bot itself is just following orders from earlier decisions in the process, but at least checking what it does seems to be a good idea. I intended to put this message in the discussion page of the bot, but then was redirected to a user whose text did not inspire me, Zhuyifei1999. Also, he/she seems not to be active anymore. That’s the reason I write here, as I wonder if the bot is still functioning. At the very least I’d like to be advised what to do if I again come across a collection like the one mentioned. Is it smart to “park” them in a category for that purpose, as I did with the Göreme pictures? Or? Dosseman (talk) 11:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dosseman: User:FlickreviewR 2 nor User:Zhuyifei1999 did not upload images in Category:Göreme seen on the move, User:Mohammed Galib Hasan did. User:FlickreviewR 2 only verified that the license in the image matches the license on Flickr. I agree that the collection is not great quality photographs, but they are geo-coded and can serve as a backup photos in case we do not have better ones. The images were reasonably categorized, unlike many other large collections transferred from somewhere. Yes our categories always need maintenance and anything you can do to help with it will be appreciated, but I do not see any issue with this batch. You can even create "place by photographer" type categories if you want to separate them. --Jarekt (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Finalist Picture of the Year with content changed

WikiAviator (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user deleted 50% of the image. Picture used on Wikipedia. 115.84.96.230 02:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Reverted, user warned. --A.Savin 02:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

File name change request

File:Kendra Sutherland at Exxxotica New Jersey 2015.jpg → File:Kendra Sunderland at Exxxotica New Jersey 2015.jpg

Category:Kendra Sutherland → Category:Kendra Sunderland

Because this is the real name of the actress.--103.104.30.148 02:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done, Next time please use {{Rename}} for files and {{Move}} for categories. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Unable to delete a file

Hi, when I try to delete the File:Premium-Cola Flasche.jpg, I get the error mesage: Error deleting file: An unknown error occurred in storage backend "local-multiwrite". Any Ideas how to fix this? --JuTa 04:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Known issue. This file isn't the only one with this error, there are many. I've tagged the file with {{Deletion error}}. -- CptViraj (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Logos of RWTH Aachen

Can some admin with a professional background in graphics design please have a look onto Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos RWTH Aachen and bring it to a decision? The case there is discussed in German; if you desire a translation into English please contact me. – Thanks for your effort! --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I closed the request. Taivo (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

User is either a bot or incompetent

• User:Cresmildo Manuel Muchiwa. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Indeffed - behavior on Wikidata shows this is cross-wiki nonsense. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Close request

Can a Commons admin look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pres. Kennedy at Rivier in 1960.jpg and close it? The last post was made over four months ago and no further clarification or evidence has been provided regarding the provenance of the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Pi.1415926535. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Leontin l

Like the year before at WLM Romania, this user refuses to place the photos in specific categories, which exist most of them, or, if not, to create new ones, so therefore he uploads a large amount of junk and others have to do this for him. At Commons we are all volunteers, not housemaids.Țetcu Mircea Rareș (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. The user is warned. Hope that helps. Taivo (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Another lovely penis collection

Here. Please zap. --Palosirkka (talk) 09:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

They were uploaded 3 months ago. There's nothing wrong with following the normal DR process for this type of case. --Fæ (talk) 10:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

accidental removal of many files from a category through Cat-a-lot

Unfortunately I accidentally removed 194 files from the category Category:Hydraulics.

I asked about a possible revert mechanism on the Cat-a-lot discussion page but this page does not seem to receive much attention.

Should I wait for an answer or is there another reasonable way to fix the dilemma?

thanks-a-lot,

--KaiKemmann (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@KaiKemmann:  Done, fixed.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@KaiKemmann: (non-admin comment) For future reference, Cat-a-lot can be invoked from the list of your contributions. If this happens again, you can go to Special:Contributions/KaiKemmann, invoke Cat-a-lot, set the Cat-a-lot category to the one in question, select the problem changes, then add the entries to the category. Let me know on my talk page if you'd like more detailed instructions for this. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Brilliant. Big thanks to you both.

@Auntof6: I am sure that this information will be helpful to many a desperate Cat-a-lot novice in the times to come. Would you maybe consider documenting this revert mechanism on the Cat-a-lot help page as a reference to all users?

Dankeschön -- KaiKemmann (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Close a deletion discussion

Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "Sky Brown" "UPROXX" has been open since May, and seems to have a consensus to delete. Is an admin able to look at this deletion request? Apologies if this is not the best venue, I'm mostly an English wiki user (these images were added to an article I created there). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done I closed the DR as delete. --MGA73 (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

User:MGA73

Moin - ist bitte jemand bereit und in der Lage den Admin User:MGA73 davon abzuhalten, den SVG-Test zig-fach zu zerschießen? -- MaxxL - talk 18:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@MaxxL: Hallo! I have a talk page and you are welcome to leave me a message there. :-) --MGA73 (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Das werde ich bestimmt nicht machen, denn Deine Bots sind das Problem. Schalte die fehlerhaften Bots einfach ab. -- MaxxL - talk 18:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

How was the last edit related to buggy bots? If bots are a problem, report the bots, please.
Acagastya (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Seit dem 7. November kämpft der User immer wieder mit seinem Bot, der die unsinnigsten Edits auf der SVG-Testseite veranstaltet. -- MaxxL - talk 20:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@MaxxL: It is not a bot. It is a script that is used by many users when they review the license of files in Category:License review needed. You can see some of the things that have been tested and changed on MediaWiki talk:Gadget-LicenseReview.js. The file is called "test" and that is why I used that file to test edits. --MGA73 (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear what about this requires administrator assistance. File:Test.svg is a test file, so it should be expected to have many unnecessary edits. I'd advise discussing this with MGA73 directly and coming back here only if the issue can't be resolved that way. clpo13_(talk) 20:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Test are accepted as far as the former status is reestablished after the test. If a mess is left behind the action is imcomplete and not acceptable. -- MaxxL - talk 20:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to revert then, @MaxxL: . A test photo is what one would use sandbox for -- but some scripts do not work/aren't supposed to work in other namespaces. Test.svg isn't use anywhere. It is possible you are getting too many notifications because the page is in your watchlist? Or do you object the usage of test files as a sandbox?
Acagastya (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@MaxxL: I did not see "the mess" as a big problem because the file is a test but if you do I will try to remember to clean up faster in future. --MGA73 (talk) 05:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Acagastya: - This file as described in the coloured box is to test SVG-Code only. To test scripts, bots and templates there are other locations.

Just to avoid confusion i would appreciate if you execute your script test somewhere else. The "me4ss" was that the instruction how to use this test file were overwritten by you which is confusing average users.  MaxxL - talk 13:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@MaxxL: The name "test" clearly indicate that the file is used for tests so no average user should be surprised that the file is being used for test purposes. So far you are the only user that complained about it. So my guess that the average user do not care. Personally I do not care much about if the file i test is a jpg or a svg or whatever. Would you be happy if I use File: JPG Test.jpg instead? --MGA73 (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: - No, I would not. As the page description states: "This is a temporary file for testing of correct rendering of JPG files." This is the sole purpose. As an experienced Admin you should be able to find a suitable sandbox for your script test.  MaxxL - talk 10:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Close deletion discussion

There are open deletion requests since January 2020. Can we have more sysops to close those deletion discussions? I'd like to request all sysops to be active also on deletion discussions. Especially I'd ask to close this request as we have another on hold request on enwiki, until the Commons DR is closed we couldn't close that. Thanks for your time, hope all sysops will consider some of their wiki time for deletion discussion. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 10:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Flag of Honduras.svg

File:Flag of Honduras.svg blanket the page of a redirect. In use more than 500 times. •2003:DE:70F:99C5:E551:B7D3:B3F4:D340 20:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Please see File talk:Flag of Honduras (2008 Olympics).svg. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

deleted

a Steward told me to ask this question here I would like this phrase deleted

Turkmen moved page User:Noël Redaelli to User:Louisette Ciliberto: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Noël Redaelli" to "Louisette Ciliberto"

1

because in this way we understand that a change has been made thanks--Mellvile (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mellvile: Why you want that log entry to be deleted? -- CptViraj (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

CptViraj because I made a mistake in calling my account Noël Redaelli and I wish that the change with the name Noël Redaelli was not written

and I would like you to delete this log entry thanks

this: 11:15, 11 September 2020‎ Turkmen talk contribs‎ m 61 bytes 0‎ Turkmen moved page User:Noël Redaelli to User:Louisette Ciliberto: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Noël Redaelli" to "Louisette Ciliberto" 1 thanks--Mellvile (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

CptViraj I await an answer, I hope positive thanks--Mellvile (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mellvile: Is Louisette Ciliberto your first account? -- CptViraj (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Long enduring deletion request

Can somebody look into the DR above? We violate Roscosmos' right to restrain their images from "commercial and political benefit-sharing" for a too long time. Regards --Ras67 (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I closed the request. Taivo (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

One week has passed

...over Commons:Deletion requests/File:Revels 2012 Fashion Show, Manipal.jpg. Can one of you (or any other uninvolved experienced user) kindly close that DR and an admin keep an eye on the file because its data are under a constant disruption. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I wrote a note at the TP; I believe file could/should be kept. --E4024 (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

That is was File talk:Revels 2012 Fashion Show, Manipal.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 23:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@E4024: Why did you create that page and Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:Revels 2012 Fashion Show, Manipal.jpg rather than posting at COM:UDR?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Because I thought the admin would change their decision. This case is closed already. Forget it. Bye. --E4024 (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

BTW when you say "Why did you create that page" certainly you refer to the TP of the file; I did not create it, the closing admin created it with a note for "kept"; later they changed their mind. FYI. --E4024 (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Ajit verma

Ajit verma (Special:ListFiles/Ajit_verma), a non-contributor, has today uploaded 20+ files with photo's of himself. I can't tag them all for SD|F10, can a sysop delete the files? Thanks, Eissink (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC).

User has been around for 4 years. Maybe the policy should be explained as they may validly want a couple for their user page. --Fæ (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

First edits shown are of this month. If I could explain user the policy, the images would still be there, so I leave this here for whoever wants to intervene. Eissink (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC).

 Done. The user is warned and all his/her uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Image displaying issue

I recently uploaded a new version of a file, but it is incorrectly displayed on a page in the history block. Black background instead of some parts of the SVG file. To create the file, I used CorelDraw 2020 (22.0.0.412) x64. What should I do? Need instruction or help from experienced project participants. file:RU COA Lunin.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legalwizard 2018 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The blocking of User:吳哲源 and User:Oooptt

Dear 1989, I’m the professor of Physics at University in Taiwan. I have a team to execute the project about Wikimedia Commons. I’m sorry for that we neglected and violated the policies of Wikimedia Commons. In the beginning, we wanted to contribute Wikimedia Commons some physics educating files which are made by teachers and registered a shared-account 彰師大物理實驗室 (彰師大 = NCUE, 物理 = Phsics, 實驗室 = Laboratory. So the full name means Physics Lab of NCUE.) to upload all files. After 彰師大物理實驗室 being blocked and all files being deleted by copyrights, we thought if all files are uploaded by our own author (including 吳仲卿, 呂承新, 吳哲源, and Oooptt), it may work. We all use the same computer and share the same IP. However, all of us are blocked again as we share the same IP. Under the help of Reke, the staff of Wikimedia Taiwan, we know the policies of Wikimedia ,and we will cooperate with WMTW from now on. Would you please unblock 吳哲源 and Oooptt) and allow us use the same computer (IP) to upload files in the future? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 吳仲卿 (talk • contribs)

Copyright or potential copyright text in file description

Forgive me if this is the wrong location. Please humour me and either move this to the correct location or ask me to do so, telling me where it should be.

File:NGC 3818.png has a huge description. It appears to be a personal reflection. I am unsure whether this is something to report as copyvio/potential copyvio, or whether thsi is something for a noticeboard such as this one.

Please ping me on any reply because I am not an active editor on Commons Timtrent (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Timtrent: , interesting question. The text is copied from Flickr, and I suppose the question is whether the text is released under the same licence as the image itself. My thought would be that image+caption make the work, but it's not clear. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mattbuck: This is not an area where I have any useful expertise. It needs wiser heads than mine. Your supposition makes sense. Presumably the final answer depends upon the actual source of the text? Timtrent (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Flickr has no possibility to publish file description under different license than photo. So we must assume, that if the text isn't copyvio from other sites in Internet or if the text itself does not say otherways, then both are published under same license. Taivo (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

DR close request

Can an adminstrator take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Kugelmugel.svg and close it? It's been open since May 13 and there've been no new comments since May 21. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Done  file deleted as missing licence. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you Nat. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Blacklist Flickr account 137596559@N07 (玄 史生)

Although Flickr account 137596559@N07 do provide a number of photos without copyright problems, the account also hosts a significant amount of scans of copyrighted works (such as [8] and [9])—all marked as "CC-0".
I'm worried that others (especially unnoticed Flickr mass uploaders) may just upload large portion of these kind of copyrighted works (and in which FlickreviewR will not be able to intercept these files). I therefore request to blacklist Flickr account 137596559@N07 to prevent such situation from happening.廣九直通車 (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@玄史生: Notifying account holder.廣九直通車 (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Re-close DR

Could someone look at re-closing Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Marianne Casamance? Unfortunately, it stems from a problem identified 12 months ago, so does involve some reading into. Closing admin User:Nat's only explanation is "does not meet COM:PCP", despite the complexity of the case, and overwhelming evidence. Thanks.--BevinKacon (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyone? I am waiting to nominate the remaining 90%.--BevinKacon (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Slowking4

Naleksuh (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Uploads by Fakesmiletoo

Fakesmiletoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Fakesmiletoo has posted over at de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Victor_Schmidt#Urheberrechte_© that I should remove some files due to copyright. Since I don't have the ability to delete files, could you please look into his contributions and delete every unfree file? Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Uploads nuked and user warned Gbawden (talk) 06:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Request for AWB rights

I have a request for AutoWikiBrowser access at COM:RFR that has not been responded to for over a week. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 13:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

 Handling. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Photo on its side. FAQ page not helpful.

Following image needs to be rotated by 90 degrees clockwise:
File:Mosav zkenim 002.jpg

I tried to follow the instructions from the FAQ page, but they're not clear enough & I can't try out all possible options. The image is being used, and it's a shame not to fix it. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Arminden:  Done, I fixed it for you using CropTool, which does wonders with weird rotation problems.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Flickr user huntingtontheatreco 59832923@N02

I noticed there have been three different DR about files from that Flickr account: Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:huntingtontheatreco (currently opened), Commons:Deletion requests/undefinedinsource:59832923@N02 -hastemplate:delete and the quite massive Commons:Deletion requests/undefinedinsource:huntingtontheatreco. However, this account doesn't figure on Commons:Questionable_Flickr_images.--QTHCCAN (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for bringing this to our attention Gbawden (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

DR close request

Can an admin look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tarick Salmaci boxing.jpg and close it or relist list it as deemed necessary? Thanks. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done

Thank you Gbawden. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Can my fellow admins please try go through the DR's for August and before to try reduce the backlog? Gbawden (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

COM:WEBHOST case

Looks like this guy has misunderstood the project scope. --Palosirkka (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Warned and deleted. @Palosirkka: You can warn users yourself if you come across this again and nominate the files for deletion Gbawden (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_found_with_insource:reserved_by_the_copyright_owner_incategory:FEDLINK_-_United_States_Federal_Collection

Courtesy notification since it concerns a larger number of files, and I'd like as many opinion as possible. Already mentioned at COM:VP/CShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

deleted

@CptViraj: yes my only account on commons, i await an answer, I hope positive, thanks--Mellvile (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mellvile: You're currently editing from account Mellvile, please login to account Louisette Ciliberto and confirm this request. -- CptViraj (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@CptViraj: on your commons page no, would remain on the history, I send you a confirmation on your wikipedia page in Simple English ok, it's your page? thanks--Mellvile (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mellvile: Yes, post a message on talk page using Louisette Ciliberto account and confirm it's yours. -- CptViraj (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@CptViraj: ok, I'll send you the confirmation on your talk page in Simple English, thanks--Mellvile (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. -- CptViraj (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Backlog

Could all administrators who do deletions take a look at some of our oldest deletions available for closure? I am still watching pages from April, 2020 and maybe earlier. I don't think it's quite as critical as needing the banner put on all our watch pages, but it would be nice to close out 2020 with less than 6 month old files on our list. Thank you all! Best wishes. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I collected several files with Facebook metadata and at DR in a special Category:Facebook files; IMHO they can all be speedied. Of course that is not a big thing but the coast is made up of individual sand grains. --E4024 (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Link to spam

Please check User:Kennguru, the link is to a spam page. Thanks Yomomo (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Umm...it looks like it may be a self-disclosure given the nature of their uploads. GMG^talk 02:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, probably a case of link rot. The URL was added in 2017 and I guess the site was abandoned and taken over by spammers some time after that. TommyG (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

This is also what I thought. Shouldn't we remove the link and try to contact the user? Yomomo (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done as U5 13:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

DR in backlog

Hi there. Can one of you please close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Édouard Schumacher - McLaren Paris.jpg? It looks like no-one else will join the discussion. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done We are trying to clear the backlog 15:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Gbawden is having trouble signing here.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 02:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism, most likely

File:ChuckKnoblauchCameo.jpg is supposably Chuck Knoblauch, born 1968--I just blocked the creator, GShumway67, on the English wiki. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Not a vandalism, simply copyright violation uploaded. This is the user's only contribution, I do not see reason for block at moment. Regular deletion request is created. Taivo (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Review of DR

Please adminstrator review of this deletion please, Commons:Deletion requests/File:MBC Show Music Core Logo since June 2019.svg.png. Is it surpass TOO? Bill Cipher, Stan, Twins, Dipper - Gravity falls and J.Smile 02:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I closed it. Taivo (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I the help one admin for 5 Sec.

There is an error on the front page Template:Motd/2020-10-12 (en) and "en" description at File:A Molecular Dynamics Simulation of Liquid Water at 298 K.webm red=oxygen, white=hydrogen it is durrently the wrong way around. Thank you --Jahobr (talk) 11:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. --jdx ^Re: 11:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Group license review request for Fæ's 2014 uploads from Picasa

This is a request for mass independent {{LicenseReview}} for an upload project where the license was without any doubt correctly verified at the point of upload.

Based on incategory:"Images uploaded by Fæ" insource:picasaweb.google.com there are 1,333 files that were uploaded in 2014 by request. As it happens I have the old machine I used at the time still available, and managed to pull out the original script created in March 2014 to do this small upload project. In 2014, this was more an exercise in testing whether I could do it for this Google hosted project, rather than a systemic upload from the old Picasa website. The relevant part of the upload script works as follows:

The script took a series of links to Picasa albums (picurls), scraped the feeds for album details and photo titles, then ran the upload bot using the information. Code snippets:

 #gallery of photos:
 gitems = BeautifulSoup(htmltry(urltry(picurl), picurl)).find('div', id="lhid_feedview").noscript.findAll('a', href=re.compile("https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/.*"))
 #then
 for a in gitems:
   detail = BeautifulSoup(htmltry(urltry(a), a).split('id="lhid_album_title"')[1]).findAll('script')[1].text.split('\n')[10]
   lic    = detail['feed'] ['cc']

The key bit that demonstrates what a license reviewer needs to be assured of is:

  if not re.search("ATTRIBUTION_SHARE_ALIKE", lic):
    skipthis = True
    print Fore.RED, "Licence given as", lic, "skipping...", Fore.WHITE
  else:
    lic = "{{cc-by-sa-3.0}}"

  # At the point of upload the action completely relies on the license check having passed
  if not skipthis:
    # Do final upload checks and do upload

This check point ensured a strict check that only photographs with ATTRIBUTION_SHARE_ALIKE chosen by the photographer could be uploaded by the script. cc-by-sa-3.0 was the correct version at the time. The script was a quick and dirty fork from the Library of Congress project, the full code is now published at Github to avoid being lost forever.

This is only 1,333 files, but I am concerned that these keep on being randomly tagged by enthusiastic volunteers that think that asking for an OTRS release is needed, 7 years after upload, for files that are well known to no longer have the sources available, and unfortunately were not fully captured on archive.org. In my view, the assurance from the original programmer, backed up by the original code, that the license checks were automated back in 2014 should be easily sufficient to mass validate the group of uploads. --Fæ (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• I have manually reviewed a few, I will wait a little bit in case there will be some opposition to reviewing in this manner, and then if no opposition will arise will continue reviewing a few at a time. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 21:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fæ: I have reviewed the rest, now this search is empty.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 21:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Could someone speedy delete some images please

Notably these two; as they contain personal data of Facebook users. They were used as part of permissions discussion between me and another user on enwiki but I've said this isn't the way to go. Thanks Nightfury (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Deleted as per request. --rimshot^talk 22:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Please notice Skancc (talk · contribs)

Uploading unfree files, and have been to license laundering since created account. 轻语者 (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done I have warned the user Gbawden (talk) 06:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Mass deletion of some uploads by a specific user?

It recently came to my attention that User:Balabinrm had used a specialized bot or software to upload a huge number of files from other websites en masse without doing the proper categorization for any of them. For example, see Category:Paintings by Claude Monet and look at the lower half of the first page as well as the following pages. These files, however, are of very low quality and often hugely scaled down versions of existing files. So, these files are not realistically useful for an educational purpose and thus outside the scope of this project. Could I have an administrator look into mass deleting those files? StellarHalo (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Eldhorajan92 (talk · contribs) Copyright violations and CIR issues

Could an administrator look at this user and decide if any action is appropriate please? This editor has a history of uploading non free images falsely tagged as their own work, and their previous uploads were deleted in a 2016 DR where it was determined that the majority of their uploads had been taken from various sites around the internet. After this deletion discussion the user went back to uploading non-free files from the internet, seen in this current deletion request, where a number of files have been identified as having been lifted from various sites around the internet. The user admits that these images are not theirs, stating on their userpage that some of the files have been taken from "other collections without any negotiations". This user does not seem to understand copyright, as evidenced by their comments on the deletion request page, where they seem to imply that images of icons and churches cannot be copyrighted.
This user also seems to have significant CIR issues, for example asking for temporary undeletion for files that have not yet been deleted and claiming that an upload from 2008 is a copyright infringement because it was used in an article in 2017. 192.76.8.92 16:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• They argued whole my file's have copyright issues without evidence? I accept some of copyright issues about icons whatever they deleted by wiki! because I don't know more about them, Now I know copyright issues. Some of page's claiming mistaken their own image and copy righted whatever that are using other sites also Eldhose (talk)

Pages for Wiki Loves Monuments bad Formatting Fields

Has someone hacked into WikiMedia Commons, pages for uploading and inserting data are not formatting?
Gillfoto 17:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillfoto (talk • contribs)

@Gillfoto: Hi, and welcome. This is a known issue, please see COM:HD#upload issue.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 21:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

File:P middle east.png

Hope this is right place, if not, please move my request to the right place.

Please add the template "{{Vector version available|File:P Middle east.svg}}" in the file description. Tal (רונאלדיניו המלך, talk) 15:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@רונאלדיניו המלך:  Done.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 22:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Tal (רונאלדיניו המלך, talk) 07:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@רונאלדיניו המלך: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 07:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Museu Francisco Tavares Proença Júnior

I moved "Category:Museu Francisco Tavares Proença Júnior" to "Category:Paço Episcopal de Castelo Branco, incluindo o Jardim Episcopal e o passadiço", because I wanted to create a subcategory of this last one named "Category:Museu Francisco Tavares Proença Júnior". But now I can´t create the "Category:Museu Francisco Tavares Proença Júnior". The issue is that the Museum is part of the building Paço Episcopal and should exist 2 diferent categories. Would you help me re-create the "Category:Museu Francisco Tavares Proença Júnior" (as a subcategory of Paço Episcopal de Castelo Branco, incluindo o Jardim Episcopal e o passadiço) with the images that are still there? (Note:"Paço Episcopal de Castelo Branco, incluindo o Jardim Episcopal e o passadiço" is the official Portuguese name of the broad building). Thank you, GualdimG (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done GualdimG (talk) 06:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked user

User:Messi leo00010 is uploading the same images (many of which are not public domain) as a user blocked yesterday by the name of User:Sivasaamy. The user was blocked by User:Túrelio. Is it possible to see if this is the same person? Coldcreation (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Done. Coldcreation (talk) 06:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Old Deletion requests

The following DR were open last May, but no action was taken since then. The reason to open these DR is the same for all files; these are banknotes released between 2003-2017 and per Commons:Currency#Argentina and List of countries' copyright length banknotes and coins from Argentina less then 50 years old, i.e. created after December, 31 1969 are copyrighted. May I ask any Adm to close these DR? Thanks, Banfield - Amenazas aquí 13:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina bcra 5 pesos 2015.10.01 bnl pnl 00020558 a r.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina bcra 5 pesos 2015.10.01 bnl pnl 00020558 a f.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina-100pesos-achter.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina-100pesos-achterb.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina bcra 50 pesos 2015.00.00 pnl a 02032424 f.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina bcra 50 pesos 2015.00.00 pnl a 02032424 r.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina bcra 500 pesos 2016.06.30 bnl pnl 00000101 a f.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina bcra 500 pesos 2016.06.30 bnl pnl 00000101 a r.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina-50pesos-achter.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina-50pesos-voor.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina bcra 5 pesos 2003.00.00 p353 j 17930040 r.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina bcra 5 pesos 2003.00.00 p353 j 17930040 f.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina bcra 200 pesos 2016.10.26 pnl a 28628625 r.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina bcra 200 pesos 2016.10.26 pnl a 28628625 f.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina bcra 20 pesos 2017.10.03 b401 pnl 00008627 a r.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina bcra 20 pesos 2017.10.03 b401 pnl 00008627 a f.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina bcra 20 pesos 2016.00.00 bnl pnl 20112014 a r.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina bcra 20 pesos 2016.00.00 bnl pnl 20112014 a f.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina bcra 1000 pesos 2017.12.01 bnl pnl 00000001 a r.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina bcra 1000 pesos 2017.12.01 bnl pnl 00000001 a f.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina bcra 100 pesos 2016.00.00 p358c 64107767 ga r.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina bcra 100 pesos 2016.00.00 p358c 64107767 ga f.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina bcra 100 pesos 2015.00.00 pnl 24032015 m r.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina bcra 10 pesos 2016.00.00 bnl pnl 00286635 a f.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina 25d0 2591 25d0 25b0 25d0 25bd 25d0 25ba 25d0 25bd 25d0 25be 25d1 2582 25d0 25b0 25d0 25b2 50 25d00b91286704.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina 25d0 2591 25d0 25b0 25d0 25bd 25d0 25ba 25d0 25bd 25d0 25be 25d1 2582 25d0 25b0 25d0 25b2 50 25d00a9d9337b2.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina 25d0 2591 25d0 25b0 25d0 25bd 25d0 25ba 25d0 25bd 25d0 25be 25d1 2582 25d0 25b0 25d0 25b2 20 25d00b91286704.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina 25d0 2591 25d0 25b0 25d0 25bd 25d0 25ba 25d0 25bd 25d0 25be 25d1 2582 25d0 25b0 25d0 25b2 20 25d00a9d9337b2.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina 25d0 2591 25d0 25b0 25d0 25bd 25d0 25ba 25d0 25bd 25d0 25be 25d1 2582 25d0 25b0 25d0 25b2 2 25d0 0feab637a5.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina 25d0 2591 25d0 25b0 25d0 25bd 25d0 25ba 25d0 25bd 25d0 25be 25d1 2582 25d0 25b0 25d0 25b2 2 25d0 00b88b3753.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina 25d0 2591 25d0 25b0 25d0 25bd 25d0 25ba 25d0 25bd 25d0 25be 25d1 2582 25d0 25b0 25d0 25b2 100 25d0b514e5734.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina 25d0 2591 25d0 25b0 25d0 25bd 25d0 25ba 25d0 25bd 25d0 25be 25d1 2582 25d0 25b0 25d0 25b2 100 25d02a37517e2.jpg
  •  Done -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Muve page.

Muve User:MJL/sco.js to MediaWiki:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js/sco with oot leavin a redirect, please. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 09:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: Do you want to say move? 轻语者 (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@轻语者: Yeah, that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ahmad252, 4nn1l2, and MGA73: ↑ -- CptViraj (talk) 11:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done It is moved... I made a mistake during the move but it should be correct now. --MGA73 (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Possibly crazy person

Check out this guy. --Palosirkka (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I deleted 2 files speedily (one as copy of another Commons file and one as intimidation/harassment). You are free to create a regular deletion request for other uploads. "Possibly crazy person" is not a reason to take action, because even among Commons administrators we have some possibly crazy persons. Taivo (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

 Comment Agreed. It's nice to see an acknowledgment that some of us have mental health issues but are more than capable at dealing with complex technical and legal problems. I don't complain at the term "crazy", after all, I've given my all to Wikimedia for over 13 years now, which would call anybody's sanity into question. We need these people and should not throw them away like a discarded tissue, and especially not for the wrong reasons. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Palosirkka Please don't label people "crazy", Sure the images they've uploaded are slightly weird.... but that doesn't make them crazy far from it!. You have no idea how people are mentally especially in this climate. –Davey2010^Talk 10:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Problems with suggested edits

Suggested Edits is a feature of the Wikipedia (note: not Commons) mobile app that shows pictures to users and asks them to enter a caption or "depicts" tags.

I first noticed it when this user began adding a bunch of strange, inaccurate, comic book/movie themed captions to several images. I rolled them back, left a message, and didn't think about it again. Later, another user began doing it again (as recently as today).

I thought it was like computer-aided tagging, which suggests tags a user can choose to apply, but apparently it doesn't actually provide possibilities -- it just shows the filename, description, and gives you a text input box. So the only explanation for the two users above seems like sock puppetry.

More worrying, however, is that when I look at the log of edits made with the suggested edits tag, most of the ones I checked were bad:

checking [en] captions: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] ...

depicts: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] (and if these last two look right to you, follow the link to the Wikidata entry -- they have been identified as a LSE building and a Wikipedia disambiguation page).

This is not a cherry-picked minority, but from just the most recent logs. There are indeed positive contributions in there, too, but they are fewer in number. This is creating a massive backlog of bad data misrepresenting the content of our media which will take a lot of time to fix. What can/should be done here? It's unclear to me where we would even leave a message for those involved. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hm. Didn't expect this to get no response. Perhaps I'm used to AN being one of the most watched pages on enwp. Should this have gone on the VP? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I don't think AN here is watched by many users outside of admins. AN threads sometimes die in obscurity if there's no clear action for an administrator to take. VP is a better place to solicit solutions to the problem of structured data vandalism, though the topic has been raised before to no avail. Or, if you can compile a list of specific problem users on COM:AN/V they can be warned and eventually blocked for vandalism. – BMacZero (🗩) 02:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hi, Could someone possibly revdel edits at File:1985 Renault Trafic T1000 (B818 TFX).jpg please? - The uploader has uploaded an image of an old van and they've included coordinates to the vehicle which I feel isn't a great idea as the vehicle is parked outside the owners house, Coords are fine for public landmarks etc but I feel having them for someones vehicle outside their home sort of invades their privacy in that respect. Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Davey, you mean to rev-delete the original image-version (1st) or the edit-history containing these coordinates? --Túrelio (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hiya Túrelio, Whoops my apologies - I meant the edit histories, Many thanks, Kind Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 18:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. But that may not be enough; it seems they are also in the EXIF data of both file-versions. Could you remove them and then re-upload the "cleaned" file? --Túrelio (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hiya Túrelio, Many thanks for revdelling the edit history, I'd completely forgot to check the metadata but I've removed the coords from there and I've also removed coords from "structured data" however it's put the coords in the edit summary so that will have to be revdelled too :(, Many thanks, Kind Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 21:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Túrelio, Could you remove this and this from the edit history please, Many thanks, Kind Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 14:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Freedom Planet Steam artwork.jpg Revdel Request

Someone please revdel the uncropped version in File:Freedom Planet Steam artwork.jpg. I highly doubt the OTRS ticket gave permission to the uncropped version. It most likely only gave permission to the original version. FunnyMath (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@FunnyMath: The assumption that an OTRS ticket does not apply to a newly-uploaded version is usually correct, but the ticket does appear to provide evidence of permission for the new version as well. These sorts of requests are typically better suited for COM:OTRSN. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for checking the OTRS ticket. I should've reported this to COM:OTRSN, but didn't know about it. FunnyMath (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Can an admin please stop User:YouTubeReviewBot

It is destroying descriptions on the videos I have uploaded: example. Also I would appreciate a rollack of its edits that it did on my files today, all of them are messed up. Thank you. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 15:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

This bot is making a mess indeed. I blocked it for a week, since the operator says he/she is 'busy'. I now have to go into a meeting, all changes need to be checked manually. Ciell (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI:

Something with mismatching between the YT-channels the movies where taken from:

• Not a White House video
• same
• same

This might not be the bots fault: YouTube is deleting accounts today for violating their terms and spreading hate speech, so I've heard. There might be a change in the identifiers of the accounts of the video's following that..? I do not speak Chinese, therefore I cannot understand what is said in the movies that have already been transferred to Commons, but we might want to investigate this. Ciell (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I have modified the block and removed autoblock and account creation block. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that @CptViraj. I'm not used to blocking on Commons, must have overlooked the prefilled boxes? Ciell (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ciell: The default is autoblock + account creation block, which is of course not ideal for bots on shared hosting. If a bot has the {{Emergency-bot-shutoff}} template on its userpage (like YouTubeReviewBot), you can click that to open Special:Block with the correct settings pre-filled. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ciell: I don't see a bot error with this particular file. Could you reinstate the review? ƏXPLICIT 23:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. My laptop does not play any of the music that is used in the movies on YT. I guess that's not free, is it not transferred to Commons? Ciell (talk) 08:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Uploads by Cop3043

Was wondering if an admin would mind taking a look at Special:Contributions/Cop3043. All of this user upload's seem to have been licensed as "own work", but many of them have the feel of coming from some website. Before I start tagging any of them for speedy deletion or starting a mass DR, I would like to get some other opinions. If there are some obvious copyvios, they probably can be deleted asap without any further discussion. I don't think the files were uploaded in bad faith and I don't think this is a behavioral issues that needs to be resolved via ANI; so, that's why I'm asking about this here instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done @Marchjuly: I had a look and you'll be right. I found some of the photos on Facebook and on a few different websites. They were all published before they were uploaded here and claimed as own work. I'm unsure about the text like photos but I reckon that the uploader doesn't have a permission for them neither so I've tagged them as "No source". I also doubt that they're in our scope... Thank you for your care. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for checking on these Podzemnik. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hello admins, I hope you all are okay. I came across the Timesroman48. The file uploaded by user is File:Ashi Singh.png which is copyvio. The user seems to be a sockpuppet of Jpj232 already been blocked. Thanks --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 14:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Done - Эlcobbola _talk 14:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  @C1K98V and Elcobbola: I reported them and more at m:srg#Global lock for Aa2111 et al.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

LTA?

Is someone familiar with the Jermboy case? Chasetrowash (talk · contribs · logs · block log) might be their latest sock. --Achim (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked and tagged him, closed some DR-s and deleted all his uploads. Taivo (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Crafts Emporium

hello someone can look user:Crafts Emporium he upload file with copyright. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles?limit=50&user=Crafts+Emporium+&ilshowall=1

bye --Chatsam (talk) 09:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks more like spam and COM:OOS. They might also be copyright violations, but I'm not sure that is a given. TommyG (talk) 09:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done User blocked and uploads deleted by another admin 10:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate image of one already made previously.

My image was uploaded on October 22 at 22:32 [27], but another similar image was made with the same details, measurements and conditions, only changing the name 3 hours later and declaring that his work is "his own" [28]. The image is duplicated and should be deleted. Apart from the fact that it is not being used in any Wiki page, the other one is. Thank you.--P Cesar Maldonado (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The duplicate can be removed, however declaring this map as 'own work' is insufficient. This SVG was created based on a pre-existing map of Bolivia. Please add the correct original source so that the copyright can be verified for this derived work as well as the blank version File:Mapa Electoral de Bolivia por municipios.svg which has also been marked as 'own work'. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Image revdel request

Hi, Could an admin please revdel the very first uncropped images at File:2012 Iveco Daily, 31 October 2018 (front).jpg and File:2012 Iveco Daily, 31 October 2018 (rear).jpg please, Many thanks, Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 15:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. -- CptViraj (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks CptViraj greatly appreciate that, (Just to go on record this was due to privacy issues), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Czech Wiki Photo 2020 - request for mass message sender permission

Hi, we (Wikimedia Czech republic) are now organizing the "Czech Wiki Photo 2020" contest and we´d like to address as many Czech users of Commons as possible (both photographers beginners and the experienced ones) to join this event. The aim of the contest is a promotion of Wikimedia Commons for potentionally newcomers and something like "thank you" for already active, more experienced users. Our volunteer-photographers just uploading pictures, they deserve at least a small appreciation.

But most of them don t know about the contest. Thus we would like to send one meassage on talk pages of cs.wiki users (who simultaneously recorded at least 50 editations on Wikimedia Commons in the last year) which would state: "hi, join our contest". Just preparing the list of users. I suppose we need the right to send this message. Consider it please, it is for Comonns´ good and future. I put this plea on Meta, but I was told to ask here. Thanks for supporting Commons in Czech rep! --Jakub Holzer (WMCZ) (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Commons doesn't have Mass Message Sender user group, so you'll to ask an administrator or post a request here (COM:AN) to send a mass message for you. -- CptViraj (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Also that unregistered users cannot hold any user rights, in addition to the lack of such user group. So, even if there is MMS-Sender user group, you are automatically ineligible. — regards, Revi 11:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Isn't Jakub a registered user? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC) Striked --Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@CptViraj: , @Revi: Oh, sorry, I forgot to log in. Is it possible now? Deadline of our contest is the 30th of October.--Jakub Holzer (WMCZ) (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jakub Holzer (WMCZ): Yes, Now we can verify that you're a real staff. As I said above, Commons doesn't have MMS user group so you'll to ask us to send mass message for you. -- CptViraj (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@CptViraj: , @Revi: Hi, thank you! Users to send: https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/49094 . And our text to send:

Milí fotografové a editoři projektů Wikimedia,

každý rok společně nahrajete na Commons tisíce svobodných fotografií. Chceme vám všem poděkovat a také vás ocenit. Vyberte ty nejlepší z vašich fotek a přihlaste je do 30. 10. 2020 do soutěže Czech Wiki Photo 2020! Soutěž je otevřená i úplným nováčkům. Autoři tří nejlepších fotek si odnesou vouchery do Foto Škoda a speciální wiki-odznaky. Přihlášené fotky bude hodnotit i Honza Rybář, držitel Czech Press Photo.

Baví vás focení pro Commons i mimo soutěže? Staňte se fotografem Wikimedie, půjčujeme fototechniku a proplácíme cesty - více na Fotíme Česko.

Těšíme se na vaše snímky!
Za spolek Wikimedia Česká republika
Jakub Holzer
jakub.holzer@wikimedia.cz

--- translation:
Dear photographers and editors of Wikimedia projects, you upload thousands of free images on Commons each year. We want to thank you all and also appreciate you. Choose the best of your photos and join the Czech Wiki Photo 2020 competition by October 30, 2020. The competition is also open to newcomers. The authors of the three best photos win vouchers for Foto Škoda shop and special wiki badges. The submitted photos will also be evaluated by Honza Rybář, holder of Czech Press Photo. Do you enjoy taking photographs for Commons even outside the competition? Become a Wikimedia photographer, we provide photo equipment and pay your travel costs - more on Fotíme Česko page. We look forward to your pictures! Jakub Holzer. Wikimedia Czech Republic

Is that OK?
Thank you very much! --Jakub Holzer (WMCZ) (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jakub Holzer (WMCZ): Please make a page like Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments in Sweden/Mass message. It's not necessary to make it in the project namespace, you can make it in your personal userspace too, for example User:Jakub Holzer (WMCZ)/MassMessage. But for record purpose I suggest you make it at Commons:Czech Wiki Photo/MassMessage. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@CptViraj: , @Revi: Hello, here it is: Commons:Czech Wiki Photo/MassMessage. Do you let me know, when you send it, please? Thanks! --Jakub Holzer (WMCZ) (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jakub Holzer (WMCZ): When you want it to be send? -- CptViraj (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Also note that I've removed bots, alternative accounts of users who are already in the list, WMF staff from the list. -- CptViraj (talk) 08:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@CptViraj: ASAP. If you can make it today, then today:-) (deadline for user´s applications is this Saturday). I added myself on the list (as WMF staff) to see, if it was send. Thank you, captain! Jakub Holzer (WMCZ) (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. -- CptViraj (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@CptViraj: Great! I see. Now, I'm curious about the impact. Thank you again! Jakub Holzer (WMCZ) (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Vandal

To be blocked: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Michelle2222222 --Estopedist1 (talk) 11:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked Michelle for a week. Vandalism is reverted. Taivo (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Needs review and out of time

By the look of it very little here is going to be legit content. If anyone has the time they need reviewing - sadly my time has run out! Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done User blocked for a while. All files deleted. I don't see a reason why to spend more time on this by tagging the files when they're all obvious copyvios. --Podzemnik (talk) 05:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Spammer

Here. Kindly eliminate brutally. --Palosirkka (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Uploads nuked, user warned. --jdx ^Re: 10:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Category move request

Made a mistake with VisualFileChange. Could everything in Category:Category:Police of Missouri be moved to Category:Police of Missouri? DoSazunielle (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. -- CptViraj (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I did something. I think it's justified, but SHOULD I be able to do it?

Okay. As many of you know, I do cleanups of images. I like to mark the original files with "Original" in their title, so I moved File:Pauline Kirby (5493900611).jpg to File:Pauline Kirby (5493900611) - Original.jpg. But while doing so, I realised I could choose not to update the file links, so didn't, as I planned to upload the restoration at File:Pauline Kirby (5493900611).jpg (the original file name). This meant I was able to fairly quietly change a bunch of links. Well, exactly eight, and I would have done them manually if I didn't do it this way.

Now, I am a filemover, so it's not like it's just anyone who could do this. But before I ever consider doing this again, I must ask: Is this something it's okay to do, something I shouldn't do, or a bug in the system? Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

You can read about when to suppress and when not to suppress redirects at COM:FR#Leaving_redirects. Basically, as a filemover, you're able to suppress redirects on unused files. However, use this ability with restraint and read up on the guidelines. You're specific example seems justified though. TommyG (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: I think the quiet change on the other projects is just about OK. The effect there is roughly the same as if you had overwritten the file, and the change you made is small enough to be allowed by COM:OVERWRITE. I do wonder which of the criteria of COM:FR you think the renaming falls into, though. Not an admin; only a filemover; but we haven't got a filemovers' noticeboard. --bjh21 (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

2 and 4 pretty much. Making the file more distinct, and among it for in with the other uploads in the upload set. Mind, normally when I move a file before uploading restoration - just plain bad filenames aside - it's more of a File:PersonName.jpg where there's ten files of the person on Commons all with barely-distinct variants of the person's name (File:Person_Name.jpg, File:MrPersonName, etc) and maybe a number (Criterion 2), but I think the logic of making a set of restored files and the original harmonious and sensible applies even in the abstract (Criterion 4). Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)