Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 88

Please suppress initial upload of file

I uploaded the Columbia Journalism Review, Vol. 2 Issue 1 (Spring 1963). The issue as a whole is in the public domain in the US, since its copyright was not renewed. However, it turns out one article did have its copyright renewed. I have uploaded a new version with those pages replaced with a placeholder that explains the issue. Could an administrator please suppress or delete the initial upload? File:Columbia Journalism Review volume 2 issue 1.djvu Thank you! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done @Peteforsyth: Can you please tell us when the copyright was renewed? We would want to know when the entire issue enters the public domain. De728631 (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind. The renewed copyright term is based on the initial publication date. De728631 (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick action! Yes, that's what I thought, but to be honest I'm not 100% sure how the formula works. The renewal would have most likely been 1991 or 1992 (28 years after initial publication), but I'm unclear on the duration. There are some useful breadcrumbs at The Online Books Page, though. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

There is also COM:Hirtle chart which is very useful. De728631 (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The renewal is for The President Nonspeaks by Ben H. Bagdikian (RE0000559382) on 1991-12-09. Copyright to this contribution to the Spring 1963 issue of Columbia Journalism Review will expire on 1 January 2059. I've added Category:Undelete in 2059 to the file. —RP88 (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

In scope?

Are uploads by Haoreima within COM:SCOPE? From my understanding, we don't upload screenshots of plain words or letter sequences on Commons; if someone wants to know how is Italy called in Manipuri language, surely Wikipedia and/or Wiktionary is the more appropriate place for that. And the images are very poorly named and categorized too. --A.Savin 17:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Please inform the user with a message on their talk page. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a related discussion at File talk:SALAILEN.jpg. I think this is more appropriate for COM:VP than for COM:AN. I suggest to talk directly with the user in question first before opening a thread at one of the administrative boards. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

доброе утро A.Savin As suggested by AFBorchert, I want to discuss this at my talk page. But since I am pinged here first, let me comment on my actions here. I think creating files on transliterations is quite ok until and unless copyright is not violated. I tried at my best level to upload copyright free items. And so, I did. Regarding poorly categorization, it's a very easy task. We can repair them within a few hours. But IDK how should it be categorised. If told to me, i will surely do it.! :) Regards! Haoreima (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. Nothing to do here. Unused files can be nominated for regular (not speedy) deletion as out of scope. This can also be discussed in village pump or uploader's talkpage or maybe other places. Taivo (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

If those files are deleted by an admin, I might not protest because it's done by an admin. But I don't think "Unused files can be nominated for regular (not speedy) deletion" is a rule. Regards! :) Haoreima (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

"Unused file" is not a reason for speedy deletion. Unused files, if they have no copyright or promotion problems, can be deleted only through regular deletion process, which lasts at least a week. Taivo (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Split or delete?

Would an admin mind looking at File:Subaru logo.svg and assessing whether a {{Split}} would be acceptable? The original version uploaded in 2012 was simple text, but someone subsequently overwrote that version in 2018 with a version which is more complex and might be eligible for copyright protection per COM:TOO Japan. If the 2018 version is OK to keep as licensed, it’s probably eligible for a split. If not, it might need to be deleted. — Marchjuly (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. I nominated the logo for regular deletion. Taivo (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Taivo. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Mihoyo logo.png Deletion

Hello, this file is nominated for deletion since about 2 weeks ago. Sorry if this is the wrong thing to do, but I think immediate attention is needed as the file ko:파일:미호요 로고.png is marked as a redundant copy, thus it is at risk of speedy deletion. The file may meet China's Threshold of Originality and therefore is uploaded locally in the Korean Wikipedia, English Wikipedia, and Indonesian Wikipedia. Thank you.--Takipoint123 (💬) 15:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

 deleted --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 15:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Takipoint123 (💬) 15:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Mass rollback possible?

Is there a tool to easily rollback a selected batch of a user's recent edits? I remember "Smart rollback", however doesn't work properly with me, and is AFAIK only usable for vandal accounts to revert just everything, that's not what I need right now. --A.Savin 15:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@A.Savin w:User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js can do a rollback of only selected edits from a contribs page. m:User:WhitePhosphorus/js/all-in-one.js can do time-limited rollback as well as mass deletion/revdel and is also useful. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed the Writ Keeper's script is exactly what I sought, thanks AntiCompositeNumber. Regards --A.Savin 18:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Ancient stuff

Greetings fellow administrators. Please see Category:Media without a license as of 30 September 2021 wherein there are a lot of pictures of heraldic Shields nominated to be removed as stated to be own work. They have been languishing here for months. Could someone please figure out what to do with these? Yes, the nomination is correct, they're not own work, but I hesitate to remove 100 something images from this project which seem to be based on old enough images, but I am not an expert on heraldry and asking for help. While you're at it, please do some work in No License, No Source and No Permissions. We are backlogged to November in all three. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Ellin Beltz Several similar ones, uploaded by the same user as far as I looked have been discussed and kept per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Media without a source as of 14 October 2021. Does this help? Ellywa (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I am never sure where to let Commons admins know about en WP sock puppet investigations

One where there are file uploads here is at w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kiambu1 I am also unsure whether this is a circumstance to notify the users concernedTimtrent (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is a good place. However, Kiambaa1 has never edited on Commons thereby not violated any on our policies (unless they get globally locked). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit war about Honduras' flag

On 25 January UTC, Michaelbaruchpacheco uploaded a new version of File:Flag of Honduras.svg with an awkward turquoise blue colour. He says that turquoise is the correct blue, based on a 1866 decree (modified in 1949 - of course back then there were no digital definitions), and the current government intends to define and standardise such colour, i.e. change the current Honduras flag which has a clearly darker blue. No sources about that information have been provided yet, as far as I know. @Blaixx, Kes47, Oblow14, and SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: have tried to restore the old file, all such attempts have been reverted by Michaelbaruchpacheco.
P/S: While I was typing, the file was restored again, but that change is likely to be reverted later. Centaur271188 (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I already requested the file to be edit-protected (same level of protection of the other files of flags) with the dark blue version. Michaelnamename is acting against consensus. -Kes⁴⁷ [REPORT AN ERROR] 05:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. I fully protected the image against move and upload. Taivo (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Chinese DR's from June 2021

Can perhaps somebody who can understand Chinese make a final decision on the top 4 requests of Commons:Deletion requests/2021/06/21. I am closing old requests, but I cannot finalize these. Ellywa (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jusjih, King of Hearts, Minorax, Mys 721tx, and Shizhao: Dear collegues, since I started as an admin I have been busy with closing old DR's. I can understand most Indo-European languages with some help of automatic translation. However, I have severe difficulties closing old DR's of uploads originated in China. Not only due to language gap, but also due to the fact that users refer to regulations from China, which I cannot understand. Could you be of help? The open DR's are today only these 3:

• Commons:Deletion requests/2021/06/21 (nominated by shizhao)
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:W020201225551948738018.pdf

By the way - is there some easy way I can reach you? This noticeboard is perhaps not regularly visited by you all. Thanks, Ellywa (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Left some opinions on the respective DRs. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, very helpfull. I might ping you again in this way. I always hope we can find a good reason for keeping images... Ellywa (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Doxing

File:CSUSM Karen Lillie License.jpg should be deleted as quickly as possible, even if the uploader is the owner, it creates an opportunity for identity theft. --RAN (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ):  Done, deleted thanks to Ymblanter! FYI, RAN is unavailable, but RN is usurpable.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

File:ACDC Back in Black Single Cover.jpg

I had a file renamed for more accuracy. As I fear, someone would use the misleading file redirect File:ACDC Back in Black Single Cover.jpg for a song article. I don't know which CSD or venue to use, so I'm dumping it here. George Ho (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. I created regular DR and explained, why the redirect does not qualify for speedy deletion. Taivo (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Taivo: Thanks for creating Commons:Deletion requests/File:ACDC Back in Black Single Cover.jpg!   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Are we allowed to challenge Administrator or Bureaucrat decisions?

Are we allowed to politely challenge Administrator and Bureaucrat decisions? I wrote, what to me, is a completely innocuous comment. I had previously asked at Village Pump if you can remove the speedy tag when the rationale for speedy deletion is inherently incorrect, or must they all go through to standard deletion. I was told that you can remove the tag. This was a Speedy Deletion nomination that was converted to a standard deletion nomination at File:La porallée en 1230.jpg. I wrote: "When a speedy deletion is as clear cut as this, you can just remove the tag, fix the problem, and not move forward with the deletion process." The response was: "How dare you presume to instruct an Admin and Bureaucrat on whether or not to open a DR" and was given a warning: "[this is your] second warning". Or was the answer to my question at Village Pump incorrectly answered? Ultimately it was ruled that the deletion nomination was indeed flawed. Do we have a rule that demands deference to Administrators and Bureaucrats? I assume warnings are given prior to some sort of punishment. I am taking a risk by bringing this up. I am asking Administrators to review other Administrators, which may lead to more warnings and potentially some sort of punitive retaliation. --RAN (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

To answer the question in the section header, yes, absolutely. Administrators are human too, and are expected to make mistakes sometimes. COM:ADMIN makes it clear that we are supposed to be members of the community, not above it, and must be accountable to the community. The comment you made was probably unnecessary, but the response was somewhat disproportionate. There is a presumption in favor of opening a DR when information may not be clear, with the reasoning that it is better to come to a clear understanding in a discussion instead of guessing. The decision to open a DR was appropriate, given that Ellin Beltz did not have enough information to confirm the source and license.

On a related note, I'd like to say that I'm not really a fan of using {{No license}} for files that have a license but where the claimed license may not be correct. Those cases are better handled at DR from the beginning. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

No, of course not. You knew this already. It's the one offence that leads to immediate indefinite bans. And this is one of the most ridiculous DRs I've seen since the last one triggered on the same basis of anger at lèse-majesté, rather than anything about copyright. Of course you're taking a risk by bringing this up, just as I am for agreeing with you. But I suspect that few of us care any more either. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think if Ellin Beltz had just said that she was performing the tedious, and sometimes thankless task of clearing the Speedy cue, and that job doesn't always allow time to investigate individual cases, but prevents them from being autodeleted, I would have agreed with her 100%, and thanked her. No one wants to see autodeletion based on a fixable error made by new uploaders. Unfortunately a child read the warning because I left the page open, and took the warning as a threat, and was worried that the family was in danger. --RAN (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

First you tell me what to do, then you tell me what I should say to you about it and how to please you and avoid unneeded hassle? So sorry, but I am not your puppet.

What I took to your talk page (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)&diff=623381966&oldid=621451645) was a response to a few troublesome interactions, followed by an obviously impolite comment from you to me - specifically Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cadgepole "If you can take the time to nominate these images, you can take a few seconds more and read the conditions to be entered into the public domain in the county of creation. I think if you are clever enough to recognize there is a problem with the attribution and license, and have enough time to spend nominating, you have enough time to look at the license parameters and fix the problem. I have brought this up with you before. --RAN (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)" So the problem is the same. You think you can tell other people what to do and how to do it. This continued on several other deletions including [1]) I politely warned you a second time on the same issue which is do not use a deletion nomination to complain about process - use the talk page.

I specifically told you a list of reasons why I convert (not usually from speedy - but from "no source, no license and no permisssion."

• I have deleted other parts of their upload galleries for problems.
• Others have deleted most of their galleries and just left the problem images in the categories for deletion for "someone else to fix."
• The uploader is new or inexperienced and think it is possible to save those images for the project instead of hitting "delete." If I can just fix it with what I am given, I do. I spend a lot of time researching, adding sources, and changing licenses - sometimes doing the work after the images are "deleted" and restoring them.
• I think the image can be saved, but I do not have sufficient information to confidently make changes, the data for which is required from the uploader under COM:EVID, I nominate.
• I think the uploader has potential and I wish to establish dialog to help them stay with the project in an effective manner. (This is the category which seems to offend you the most.)

I fail to see how that's very much different from the message you demanded to hear to be happy that I'm not just slam-dunking off thousands of images that could be saved.

Yes, of course, you can challenge a Decision. But that's not what you are doing or did. You didn't challenge any decisions at all - or this issue would be at COM:UNDEL not as a complaint at ANU. You tried (on several occasions) to give unsought and sometimes insulting lessons about when and how and what to do - to folks who have been here longer than you - and in the process were not particularly polite about it. I am remaining civil of course, but I am saddened whenever someone makes this much public hassle based on not getting along politely in the first place as it is so unnecessary when there is so much work to be done on the project. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Are you calling me a child? I am older than the World Wide Web. However, your editing career on WMF projects is longer - I see that you were blocked on enwiki for copyright violations before I joined, and you have brought your propensity for disruptive editing and your battleground mentality here to Commons; none of that is tolerated here, either. You also neglected to notify me of this discussion, as required above.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• A child in my household read: "How dare you presume to instruct an Admin and Bureaucrat on whether or not to open a DR" and "[this is your] second warning" and perceived the warning as a threat, and was scared for the family. I think even an adult would find it threatening and a little more than "somewhat disproportionate". --RAN (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Can I please advise everybody to read COM:MELLOW. It is a nice read, and it works wonders in cases like this :) --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Be it done mellow or harsh, but all I can see in that DR was egos clashing and tempers shortening and if not for Yann’s adequate closure, we’d have lost an obvious PD image for no good reason. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to Yann, but also to me for dragging it out of the mass of candidates and giving it special treatment, without which it would have been gone in October or November. We do have quite a backlog in the No Source, No License and No Permission categories. Administrative assistance welcome over there, also welcome are people willing to research and fix things.

Incidentally, I was not notified by the initiator of the ANU discussion, but by a different user as you can see on my talkpage. All is mellow, thanks for the good wishes everyone, and now back to our regularly scheduled programming of being nice to each other and booting out the copyright violations. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Request from Aamrs

Hi,

Would be possible to check and allow the creation, please?

View source for Template:User reviewer/LANGCODE ← Template:User reviewer/LANGCODE Jump to navigationJump to search You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

The page title or edit you have tried to create cannot be created or edited by you at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, used to prevent vandalism.

Thank you. --Aamrs (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Aamrs: Hi, I don't understand what you want to do. Could you explain please? Yann (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Aamrs and Yann: It seems that the page Template:User reviewer/LANGCODE is blacklisted by a regex in MediaWiki:Titleblacklist or m:Title blacklist. The answer is template editors and admins can create the page, which I did (since you're autopatrolled, I believe you attempted to create it in good faith). You should be able to edit it from now on, as long as it exists. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 14:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you so much. --Aamrs (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a reason this page is blacklisted: this is to prevent recreation, as it shouldn't exist. LANGCODE should be replaced by the actual language code. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

AGF is not always good... NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 18:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• I don't blame AGF but I ask at the blacklist talk page for someone to put a better explanation in the comment. Just my two cents. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

93.143.73.189

93.143.73.189 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Constant cross-wiki personal attacks on my talk pages by 93.143.73.189... Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

 blocked by Achim55. --Túrelio (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The IP is now using 93.143.105.184 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. Can a range block be made? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, special:contribs/93.143.0.0/17 should do.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 20:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit request - {{Vote rename}}

Please add Chinese translation of "rename" (|zh=重命名). Thanks. --沈澄心✉ 08:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@沈澄心:  Done NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 10:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

File:COA Saky, Crimea, Ukraine.svg

The file should be renamed. 217.117.125.83 17:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

...and what new name do you suggest? You can use {{Rename}} on the file page. --Mosbatho (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I used, see history. 217.117.125.83 07:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @TommyG, Marcus Cyron as rename request decliners.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

My issue with the rename request was that it was filed under Criterion 5. And, while the name may be against Russian policies and guidelines, I doubt Wikimedia Commons has aligned itself with those. Thus, the natural conclusion was to decline. I don't have any particular opinion, either way, apart from that. The naming seems like a political issue rather than a maintenance issue, so I'd rather not get involved. TommyG (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

At first: the request came from within the center of Moscow. So there is a clear biased request. Second: there is nothing "disputed". United Nations are clar: Crimea is part of the Ukraine! Even if Russia uses violence to change it. There is a renaming not possible, unless we bow to violence. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The request (which I here correct to ".svg") was to rename to File:COA Saky, Crimea.svg, removing ", Ukraine". It cited Commons:Disputed territories #4 as what looks like reasonable justification. Pinging @99of9 as the author of that essay and a potential mediator.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the strategy in that essay supports renaming to remove sources of editorial conflict related to disputed territories. Both the English and German Wiki article about this place discuss the dispute/conflict/discrepancy between legal ownership and current control. That is the best place to lay out the facts of the situation. However, I would not make a name change if the heraldry of this particular coat of arms is directly associated with the heraldry of the Ukraine (e.g. if Russia has a different CoA for Saky). I am not knowledgeable about whether this is the case. --99of9 (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The essay is however, not a "Commons’ policy or guideline", so it's not a criterion 5 move. TommyG (talk) 08:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:Image extracted doesn't get autotranslated to the majority of the available translations

The only translations that are working is German (de) and Swedish (sv). On the other languages, the example images change to the selected language but the text remains in English. I compared the behaviour with the Template:Extracted from and this last one is autotranslating without any problems. I hope you can fix it. Best regards, Crazy hat royal (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I can't reproduce the problem. It might be related to phab:T300818 though. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I took a screenshot. I don't know if it helps in the solution, but it helps me to show what I'm seeing on my side. File:Image extracted - autotranslation Russian and Ukrainian.png. On the right I used Russian (actually it works) but then compared to Ukrainian it remains in English. It seems that the language doesn't get parsed, although the site is translated with the language change. Crazy hat royal (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

When the template code was reworked last year, it was changed to only to accept translations from the template's sandbox which does include Russian but not Ukrainian. However, the autotranslation part was also adjusted at that time, so I removed the sandbox bit. Now all languages shown in the subpages overview should be enabled. De728631 (talk) 06:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Using "no license" to speedy delete an image with an incorrect license

I have been seeing use of a "no license" tag to speedy delete images with incorrect licenses, @AntiCompositeNumber: noticed it also being used. Is that something we can discuss here? If they stay in the speedy queue too long, they get autodeleted. Is it a known practice that is tolerated? Should we add "incorrect licenses" to the reasons for speedy deletion, or should the practice not be used? Anyone have an opinion? If you do not add a license when uploading you get a notice within the hour that a license is needed, telling someone a year later there is no license, when there is, is not helpful, the uploader may never see the notice to correct the deficiency before autodeletion. There should be a reasonable way to resolve this so everyone is happy. --RAN (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): You are going to have to be more concrete. Either they put the license there (when they uploaded it, maybe) or they didn't. Are people mistagging things as "no license" and then administrators are deleting them under speedy criteria when there is a license? Or is the license being removed so it has no license on the page (a year later) and then speedy tagged as no license? Or was there never a license listed and just because someone else noticed it a year later and tagged that, it's the fault of others (not the uploader) for not following/noticing the requirements when they uploaded. The second I see all the time with categories being emptied without discussion so that antic wouldn't surprise me. F5 says that a lack of license 'may' be given a grace period but do you want it mandated? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Here is an example: File:Santiago Arroyo y Valencia.jpg, it was speedied as having no license, when it had an incorrect license. Having no license automatically gives you a message within an hour after uploading, this happens to me if I have a typo in the template name, and I can fix it right away. We can solve this dilemma by adding "incorrect license" as an option for "speedy delete" and have a separate queue for those items and they can be autodeleted. Or just have "incorrect license" images go to the standard deletion queue where they get reviewed before deletion. --RAN (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): In the case of this edit, EugeneZelenko did not think that the "{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}" license tag was valid. He just as easily could have used "{{No permission since|month=October|day=4|year=2021}}", doubting that the painter had granted cc-by-sa-4.0 permission so many years ago. I think 1840 is somewhat late, as the subject would have been about 66 years old then. Also, the frame could be unfree. In addition, Template:No license since has a 7 day delay before it becomes speedy, and we have no autodeletion.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

That is not "no license", it is "I don't think the current license is valid" which is not a reason to speedy an image. When you think a license does not apply, or that a second license is needed, you should use the normal deletion process. If you think a frame is unfree make the case at the deletion discussion. Also when you create a derivative-copy of a public-domain work, the creative commons license is valid for the derivative work, especially when the object is 3d like a painting in a wooden frame. That is why we can't declare images of 2,000 year old roman sculptures from museum websites public domain. If patrollers want to add "incorrect license" as a valid reason for speedy, I am ok with that. This isn't about one image, several appear in the Speedy queue this way every day, by multiple people. If no-permission is the same as wrong-license, then just use no-permission. The solutions are very easy and everyone can be happy, we don't have to mislabel deletions. --RAN (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Does anybody prevent interested parties to look over maintenance categories and properly (sorry, I saw not so convincing example from your side) fix license and source information? Same is true for patroling new uploads, especially those made by newbies. You could definitely help with both if you are so concerned. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• It think it would be of great benefit to the project if people used their expertise to solve the image issues regarding no source, no license and no permission during the seven day window for fixing images. I personally believe we could do more in the 7 day window if we were not so back-logged with no source, no license and no permission images. We certainly improved our "speedy" game (exclusive of the three no categories) once we got rid of the speedy backlog about a year or so ago. It would be awesome to have our no license, no source and no permission categories back to where it was a couple of years ago where only the past 7 days were active - not the past three or four months. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  Part of the problem, as far as I'm concerned, is that the no source/license/permission categories are clogged with files that are not the clear-cut cases those processes were designed for. It's a confusing process for uploaders if they did provide a license, since there's no individualized explanation of why this file was tagged and no clear way for them to explain. They can start the DR themselves, but that doesn't happen often. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  The other part of the problem is the dang cross-wiki upload tool that was only supposed to be used for own work but gets used for everything anyway. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  @AntiCompositeNumber: I tried to get the cross-wiki upload "feature" turned off three years ago in phab:T214230, but got no joy.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  A review of Category:Media without a license shows media without a license since October 2021 so there is a large backlog of allegedly unlicensed images that could be reviewed and corrected. However, I can see why few people would be interested in combing through many old images and trying to guess the licenses or license issues. For example, I cannot tell what the issue is with File:Eurosolar-Preis 2021 001.jpg. The bot tagged it as no license which makes sense as the license is buried within another template but Template:Eurosolarpreis 2021 Presse-Akkreditierung seems like a proper license to me. If it is, then it's fair to remove the tagging from all images in the set. Else, it may need a discussion on the template just to clear it up and move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Move request for Relgen i18n

Can someone move MediaWiki talk:Relgen.js/i18n/ja to MediaWiki:Relgen.js/i18n/ja per MediaWiki:Relgen.js/i18n, please? Despite the instructions written there, FDMS4 cannot perform this after losing the IA permission. (I'm posting here because there is no adequate talk page to tag with {{Edit request}} - the page I linked itself is a talk page.) whym (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, it might be a good idea to remove/replace the username of FDMS4 from MediaWiki:Relgen.js/i18n, if they wish so. whym (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I moved the page but I'm unable to the change the content model to JavaScript as I'm not an IA. Pinging AntiCompositeNumber. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

ID.me Logo.png

I am requesting a review of File:ID.me Logo.png. It was uploaded by a user claiming CC license as the work of corporation ID.me. Wasn't going to speedy delete tag it if it was salvageable with {{PD-textlogo}}. --William Graham (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@William Graham Yeah, that's {{PD-textlogo}} in the US. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. I relicensed and categorized the logo. Taivo (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Reverting extra versions of one file

I have a problem with a file I uploaded originally almost 14 years ago, File:Hartola church.jpg. I corrected perspective and cropped it and uploaded the better version. First I uploaded a wrong version and then the right one. Then I tried by reverting the old versions get the better version to bet the current version, but it did not happen. Now I am asking you kindly to delete all reverted versions but not the 2022-02-07 at 22:31 (or 22:08 or 22:36) 2.22 MB version. The original 2008-06-08 version may also stay. The right version with corrected perspective wont rise up. Thank you. --Htm (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

It can be a bit confusing, since the image is cached so after uploading or reverting, you may still see the old version for a bit. Just give it some time, or purge the page to see the changes straight away. So, in other words, just revert to the version you wish to be the active version, and then leave it at that. It will eventually be correct. TommyG (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice and YES! it did finally happen! Redgards, Htm (talk) 09:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Possible problematic image source

A couple of files like File:Busan Transportation Corporation FC.svg, File:Busan IPark.svg and File:Korea Football Association.svg (there seem to be quite a number of others as others as well) were uploaded in the past few days by an editor named Elifallen and they all seemed to be sourced to website called "namu.wiki". The website is in Korean (which I don't read), but it looks like it might be some kind of "Logopedia" type of user-generated content site. Some of the files (like the one used in en:Busan IPark) might be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection, but many of the others seem to be rather complex. Since all of the files that were uploaded appear to be svgs, maybe the persons uploading them to namu.wiki thought it was OK to release them under a CC licenses; however, the svg versions would still seem to be derivative works, wouldn't they? It also looks like files uploaded to "namu.wiki" are released under NC licenses which aren't acceptable for Commons (see here, here and here). Assuming that these files were uploaded in good faith to Commons, I'm wondering whether there's a way to flag "namu.wiki" as a COM:PRS so that any attempt to upload files from it would be flagged for a review. I only noticed "File:Busan IPark" by chance because it had replaced en:File:Busan I Park.png uploaded locally to English Wikipedia, but other non-free files may have also been replaced by namu.wiki files. Since the non-free files will end up deleted (at least the English Wikipedia ones) if they remain unused for more than five days, I thought bringing this up for discussion here might lead to a quicker resolution that a traditional DR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

NamuWiki is just another wiki, see en:Namuwiki. They do not have the right to re-license these logos, so I have deleted most of them as copyright violations. The remaining are likely below South Korea's threshold of originality and can be discussed at DR if there is reasonable cause to believe they are too complex. ✗plicit 00:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Explicit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to ban uploads from client of copyleft-troll company Pixsy from Commons

As shortly discussed in this VP thread , recently Cory Doctorow reported his experience [2] with the copyleft-troll company Pixsy, who tried to extort him over a CC-licensed image from Flickr, which Doctorow had used license-compliantly. In his article he explains how this extortion scheme works with CC-licensed images. As the troll-company had to disclose on whose behalf they were working in his case, Doctorow identified him in his article as Flickr-photographer Nenad Stojkovic [3].
Now, in order to not allow Commons/Wikipedia to be misused as platform for this extortion-system and not to knowingly expose our re-users to this risk, I propose to ban all uploads from the mentioned Flickr-account from Commons, similarly as we have banned for the same reason all images by Marco Verch (see: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Images by Marco Verch and Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with marco verch). Colleague Huntster helped to identify the images by this problematic Flickr-account currently present on Commons, see Category:Photographs by Nenad Stojkovic and [4]. As such a ban is a rather invasive measure and, in this case, based so far only on one experience, I would first like to put the proposal up for discussion. Opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

 Support such a ban.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

 Support We don't want Commons to be used for extortion. Yann (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

 Support ban. - Jmabel ! talk 19:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

 Troubled support I can see deleting the uploads being weaponized by copyleft trolls. New victims might look on Commons to see the license information only to discover a deleted page. Commons needs to keep the file page (so mere mortals can see the license and upload details) but deny access to the image bits (to prevent future victims). Glrx (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments below imply that Pixsy is not a "copyleft-troll company" but rather a copyright enforcement company that is abused by trolls. Consequently, not all clients of Pixsy should be treated the same way (e.g., banned from uploading). From the article, the problem is the use of early CC-BY-SA licenses that do not require a notice to cure. The upload ban should be more specific, and the predicate should not require us to prejudge any lawsuit. We might only remove/disable uploads that are less than CC-BY-SA 4.0 (after giving the user an opportunity to modify earlier licenses to CC-BY-SA 4.0). Furthermore, Commons might require all future uploads to be CC-BY-SA 4.0. Glrx (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

 Strong oppose (Disclosure: I myself am using Pixsy in order to ensure license compliance. If websites don't attribute, then I wish to get paid instead for my work. When it is a simple matter of failing some part of the license used with good-faith, then neither I, nor Pixsy, will act on such usage. I tag images and warn re-users of that fact. But, feel free to ban me why don'tcha!) Anybody is welcome to license their works away for free if they'd like, but then they get to set the requirements (such as following a CC-license). If you can't enforce the CC-license, then basically there is no point even licensing it at all, and only force people to release under e.g. public domain. Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons follows the licenses and therefore we are free to use the images - if a re-user does not follow the license, it should be well within the author's right to enforce compliance. If say Disney were kind enough to not be copyright-arses as usual, and actually freely license a still image from one of their movies under a Creative Commons license - you can still bet your asses that they would enforce their copyright for usages where the license requirements weren't followed. That should not however mean that we should ban Disney from donating their work under a CC-license here on Wikimedia, since that would be a great loss in terms of illustrating Wikipedia. Why should there be a difference if a photographer wishes to enforce their license or if Disney does it? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I see several important differences here, though. Your main personal priority is unquestionably to provide high-quality, well-described images for Wikimedia projects and good-faith reusers; you use Pixsy to deal with those who deliberately ignore the license terms. You also go out of your way to make it clear what the terms of use are, and that you will enforce them. From the information in the article, Stojkovic appears to be using Pixsy specifically as a source of income, with any good-faith use of the images secondary to that. Looking at a typical image of his on flickr, I see a bunch of halfway-related tags. I cynically see that as SEO to attract additional re-users, with the expectation that some of them will not follow license terms. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

But, if we follow the licenses and inform re-users thet they need to adhere to the license requirements before reuse, I don't see why we should be punished by not being able to host images, which if deemed in scope, can nicely illustrate Wikipedia articles. The reasoning behind someone wanting to license a file under CC does not deter from the fact that it is still under licensed under CC. Anybody should be free to enforce the license requirements (which they kindly, or unkindly, have released something under) how much or how little they want, in my opinion. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

 Support ban, per all of the above. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

 Support ban of Nenad Stojkovic's works. In my opinion this should not be an indictment of Pixsy or other users of Pixsy (as Jonatan indicates above, there are people who use the site in a responsible way), this is a targeted ban of a particular user that seems to be acting in a predatory manner. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

This Flickr user's images (which are in the category at least) are in use on 15 different articles (13 of them in in main namespace). There are no copyright policy reasons to delete these images which have already been uploaded and since they are in use in articles, it seems like Wikipedia editors appreciate these images despite the authors proclivity to fight all misuse of the licenses (which might be a shitty thing and not in the spirit of the license, but is still perfectly legal). Not sure what a presumptive ban on future uploads would do, more than hinder us to illustrate Wikipedia articles effectively. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no copyright reason to delete them, but there is a very valid one: to prevent people using Commons for extortion. This is IMO a much better reason than copyright (which might or might not be really a problem; in some cases, it is just our policy). Yann (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. While we always strive to keep images that are in use, there is nothing that prevents us from removing such images if they do not contribute to the mission of Commons. Simply having a valid copyright doesn't protect an image from ever being deleted. Removing these files ultimately helps protect end users from predatory practices. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

An, IMO worse alternative to an image-ban would be a "solution" as as implemented in this photography File:Devon Allman.jpg (Background: [5]). --Túrelio (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

 Support Ban per supporters above. The Commons project is no bagman for skulduggery. --Ooligan (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Can an admin make some edits for me please?

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Quick Quokka ^[talk] 16:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I want to edit some stuff for the Wikipedia logo page, but it is cascade protected, and only administrators are allowed to edit.

I want to do the following things:

1. Modify the annotations.
   1. Make all annotated text in parentheses Italicized
   2. Change "휘 (Hwi) for Korean-script Wikis " to "휘 (Hwi) for Hangul-script Wikis"
   3. Add "維 (wéi) for Hanzi-script Wikis" (Below Greek Ω)
   4. Add "ו (V) for Hebrew-script Wikis" (Below Cyrillic И)
   5. Add "ウィ (Wi) for Katakana-script Wikis" (Above Latin W)
   6. Add "Վ (V) for Armenian-script Wikis" (Top-left-most symbol)
   7. Add "វិ (Wě) for Cambodian-script Wikis" (Below Armenian Վ)
   8. Add "উ (U) for Bengali-script Wikis" (Left of Ω)
   9. Add "वि (Vi) for Devanagari-script Wikis" (Left of Hanzi 維)
   10. Add "ვ (V) for Georgian-script Wikis" (Below Devanagari वि)
   11. Add "ವಿ (Vi) for Kannada-script Wikis" (Below Hanzi 維)
   12. Add "ཝི (Wi) for Tibetan-script Wikis" (Below Kannada ವಿ)
   13. Add "வி (Vi) for Tamil-script Wikis" (Below Hebrew ו)
2. Add vector versions in "Other versions" section
   1. File:Wikipedia logo v2 (white).svg instead of File:Wikipedia logo v2 (white).png
   2. File:Wikipedia logo v2 with text (black).svg instead of File:Wikipedia_logo_v2_with_text_(black).png

Thanks in advance for any help --Quick Quokka ^[talk] 18:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done You forgot two letters: the one above Arabic و and the one below Hangul 휘. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much!

Sorry I forrgot those. The one above arabic: "ው (Wə) for Ethiopic-script Wikis", and the one below Hangul is "วิ (Wi) for Thai-script Wikis"

I'm gonna go give you a barnstar now. Quick Quokka ^[talk] 04:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2022 for Commons

Please consider supporting this proposal:

• m:Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Bots and gadgets/Tool that reviews new uploads for potential copyright violations

4nn1l2 (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Closure review on talks about File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg

Both Commons:Deletion requests/File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg and Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Flag of the Australian Aborigines.svg were closed by Yann, who voted in the DR discussion and participated in prior discussions about Australian aboriginal flag. I found the closures by involved admin incorrect. The closures should be reversed/undone, and discussions should be reopened. I addressed this to Yann, but he has the "busy" banner on the top of the talk page. George Ho (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@George Ho: That's really not necessary. Deletion requests are not votes. The decision is based on copyright law, not on opinions. The rules are clear, the flag is in the public domain due to age, whether you like it or not. Yann (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Still, you're involved. And the whole consensus disagreed on whether the Australian law was clear on this. One person below found it odd as well. George Ho (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Yann: You act like this is cut and dry, but there are serious concerns about what the government has actually done in fact. Most people who wanted the flag to be kept did not say that it was in the public domain; they said that the government has placed it under a free license. Your interpretation - that the flag is fully in the public domain - was supported by a very, very slim portion of participants. And there is a clear logical inconsistency with it: if it's public domain, how could it still be licensed to anyone (freely or otherwise)?

It seems odd to me to close off the discussion here when there is clearly still something to be sussed out.  Mysterymanblue  08:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time that something in the public domain is still sold for money. Yann (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

If I re-nominate the flag, you wouldn't abruptly close that DR discussion, would you? George Ho (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@George Ho: Don't do that, it would be edit-warring. Let's wait for other opinions here. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

We're talking about a multi-million dollar deal between the Australian government and several prominent public parties. I think "it occasionally happens in certain situations" is a weird basis on which to overlook this clear incongruity and to stop any discussion of it.  Mysterymanblue  09:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this closure seems odd. There was significant disagreement over whether the copyright had actually been transferred, and there are still many open questions about the flag's licensing. Seems like a very odd point to stop the discussion.  Mysterymanblue  08:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Expending what I said above:

• About the procedure: DRs are not votations. My opinion could be removed from the DR, it wouldn't change anything about the copyright analysis.
• About the copyright status: 1. there is no doubt that the copyright belongs to the Australian government. 2. In this case, copyright expires 50 years after the first publication, which occured in 1971, it is therefore in the public domain. No conter-argument was given about this point. 3. There are a lot of speculations of licensing, but these arguments are moot, as the flag is in the public domain. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  Per COM:DR#Closing discussions: However the more complex a discussion, and the more users have argued for the opposite outcome than the administrator's decision, the clearer the explanation of the decision is required. In any event, administrators are expected to clarify or explain their decisions on request. Unfortunately, your closing rationale was one-sided IMO. It didn't summarize the arguments well. Furthermore, the government's decision to buy the copyright and provide statements that have made others wonder make the situation more complex than you think. George Ho (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I took a quick look. "there is no doubt that the copyright belongs to the Australian government" is not supported. There is a citation to a Medium article by David Brennan, which claims that if there was a copyright "transfer" in 2022, then the flag would be a government work and out of copyright. That same article expresses doubt about whether there was a "transfer" (e.g., "While the agreement may be commercial-in-confidence, there are important copyright questions left unanswered that should be addressed."). The article resolves nothing, but it does raise questions about the copyright. The only settled matters seem to be that Harold Thomas (not the Australian government) created the work in 1971 and published it. It was not a government work and therefore not a Crown Copyright before 2022. Thomas may have merely sold a (possibly exclusive) license to the Australian government, so he may still have the copyright. (The article did not cite authority about copyright transfers becoming Crown Copyrights.) Glrx (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

All articles say "the AUS government bought the copyright", not a license. Also 20 M AUS$ for a license doesn't seem plausible. The whole point of this purchase was to get rid of this copyright. You try to be more royal than the king. Yann (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Yann, right now, that's three-against-one, i.e. seems that the other two so far have concerns about your closure. BTW, please back down your accusations against Glrx about being "more royal than the king". This doesn't look good on you, does it? --George Ho (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if it seems an accusation, but I don't mean that. I just mean that you want to enforce the copyright more than the copyright holder themselves. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

What happened to respecting people's opinion here? And how does your interpretation adequately justify your closure? Also, the whole community is either unsure or divided about the current copyright holder's intent. George Ho (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

You like hyperbol and fake news, do you? In the DR, I counted 6 opinions for deletion, and 7 for keeping. The whole community, huh? Yann (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe "community" isn't the right word. "Participants" perhaps? Even as majority, the number is still split, and anyone would've closed better with more rationale. Speaking of rationale, I think about bringing up one of old discussions from 2015, which led to this unsuccessful undeletion request.

BTW, please refrain from asking me that question... or the accusation disguising as a "question". You should know better especially as an admin to abruptly suggest or ask that. George Ho (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is entirely inappropriate. While one might argue that Yann's interpretation of the law is wrong, there is absolutely nothing wrong with an Admin expressing an opinion in the DR and then closing it. We do it all the time. Please remember that the Admin closing a DR is required to apply their knowledge of the law and circumstances. The opinions expressed by others in the discussion should inform the final decision, but the opinions are not votes and it is perfectly all right for an Admin to close a discussion against the majority of the opinions expressed in the discussion.

"The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy." from Commons:Deletion_requests#Overview.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Jim, what would've you done to the discussion? Same as Yann's, or what else? --George Ho (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Why would it matter what he would have done differently? There are divided opinions on the matter. Frankly, I can understand both viewpoints. At some point an admin needs to make a decision; closing a situation as a "keep" vs "delete" in that case doesn't seem to be cause for bringing the issue up here. If an admin closes a discussion blatantly prematurely, I could see it, but if that was the case then it should be brought up here no matter which decision the admin made. If it's simply being brought up because you disagreed with their decision, it does seem inappropriate here, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

How is the closure by an involved admin not "blatantly premature"? Furthermore, surprisingly, Commons:Administrators doesn't mention admins being directly involved in situations. George Ho (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there any more evidence or other information forthcoming to make the situation more obvious? There does seem to me to be plenty at hand, and the main question is if the particular right to make flags with it, causes this to be "non-free". If there had not been the Australian court case, we would have marked that "PD-ineligible" without too much thought, as I'm pretty certain there is no chance for a U.S. copyright (so it's always been fine for en-wiki). But, the court case was impossible to ignore for the country of origin. Per an older article, the author had licensed one company to make flags, another for clothing, and a third for merchandise. Given everything that has been brought forth, it certainly seems as though the Australian government has purchased the copyright from the owner, plus almost certainly the licenses from the clothing and merchandising company. But, most likely they were not able to purchase the license from the flag-maker. Since an exclusive license is often considered part of the copyright, then that sliver of copyright remains. From that company's perspective, nothing has changed, other than who they pay royalties to. But it sounds like the government has no desire to exercise control any aspect of the copyright they purchased (and their law may have caused the government-owned portion of the copyright to expire), so really the only restriction left is making flags with it, in Australia. It's fine in most of the world, since it's almost certainly not eligible for copyright except in maybe a few countries which inherited the UK's threshold of originality (which may not even include the UK itself given the EU changes). From a practical perspective then, it seems virtually free everywhere -- the one exception being making flags in Australia, and maybe a couple of other countries. Commons has no problem hosting trademarked works, which would absolutely preclude making flags and clothing and many other things. We (and really the "free" movement) have chosen to be only about copyright. But Commons also doesn't care if copyright exists in some countries -- by policy, we have limited it to the U.S. and the country of origin. We undeleted works this year for authors who died in 1951, even though they may still be fully under copyright in Spain and Colombia (80pma countries). For us, such works are "free enough" as long as those are not the country of origin -- we don't demand that every last use be OK in every country. So, policy is not to follow copyright to the bitter end, everywhere. In this case, it's completely free in the U.S., and given recent developments, virtually free in Australia, with the single exception of making flags (with basically no chance of any further restrictions). From a practical perspective, it's more usable than a non-copyrighted trademarked work. Is that "free enough" for Commons? For me, it's squarely in the area where the decision to delete feels fairly arbitrary, based on where the exact lines of our rules happen to fall rather than any real philosophy. The rules make sense in general, but there is a point where common sense can apply, too. If you follow the rules to the absolute last letter, then yes there is one particular restriction in the country of origin which is enforced by copyright. On the other hand, we have no problem with far more significant restrictions for other reasons, or for copyright reasons in other countries. Even in the country of origin, that one particular use is not really going to affect anyone, not like a full copyright would.

So, to me, the final question is if that one last sliver of copyright in Australia causes it to become "non-free". By the letter of our rules, it may be non-free. By the spirit though, it very well could be fine. So that is the decision an admin needs to make, and while I could respect either one, Yann chose the latter (i.e. it's "free enough"). I'm not sure what further evidence could come to light which would affect that, nor do I see it as any kind of abuse. If there was significant evidence forthcoming, maybe that would be reason to hold off, but if enough pertinent copyright information has come to light, it's not premature really, particularly if the decision is to keep, since it seems less likely that the government would try to introduce any more restrictions. Commons:Deletion policy specifically says administrators be the ones who decide, unless it's non-controversial. For an undeletion appeal, you would want that to be decided by an administrator other than the one who deleted it in the first place. In this case though, the original status was not under question, just the new status following the Australian government's action. It ended up being played out in an UDR request, and I guess a regular DR as well, but it was the same decision either way. I don't think there is anything precluding it being closed by an administrator who has participated in the discussion, just that they decide based on copyright law and available evidence. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

By the spirit though, it very well could be fine. You think Yann's following the "spirit" of intent? And you think the government has no desire to exercise control any aspect of the copyright they purchased (and their law may have caused the government-owned portion of the copyright to expire)? Well... have it your way then. Someday, I might prove evidence (not definite, unfortunately) of doubt about "public domain" status. And your blatantly lengthy reply didn't have to be that... lengthy. George Ho (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Following the spirit? Sure. Our rules try to ensure that a work is free in at least most of the world before hosting it here. The restrictions left seem extremely minimal, even if it is copyright-based. If the remaining right was a license for flags only in say New Zealand, Commons wouldn't care. So, there are situations where policy is fine with copyright continuing to exist in some places -- and that is *full* copyright, not this oddball situation where it is only very limited rights which still exist. I don't mean to say it's clear-cut, since it is absolutely a copyright-based restriction in the country of origin, and as such not 100% PD. But it's certainly arguable, and I could see an admin going either way. The government was attempting to "free the flag" following a lot of public pressure, and I have not seen any indication whatsoever that the government is trying to exercise copyright. And yes, section 180 of their law states that the copyright of any work simply owned by the government expires 50 years after creation (it was recently simplified, as it used to be 50 years from publication). The equivalent UK law limits that to only Crown Copyright works (i.e. works which were Crown Copyright from the beginning), but Australia's wording is different -- it's simply where "the Commonwealth or a State is the owner". That certainly doesn't apply to the portion that flag-maker owns, but it well could to the rest. As with any deletion or undeletion, more evidence can be brought forth to have the question re-examined in light of that evidence. Should be the same here; I'd certainly like to see anything which you could provide. As for the lengthy reply... sorry, yes, guilty as charged. I make that mistake in many places, not just here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I appreciated Carl Lindberg's lengthy dissertation, not because of the word count- but the word's weight. @Clindberg Ooligan (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Now that you mentioned the law, here's the latest revision of the 1968 Act. I could further argue the lettering and the spirit... and Harold Thomas's assertion to uphold moral rights, but I fear rehashing the issue here. George Ho (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Yep, I think I linked to the 2019 consolidation, which is pretty much current. It's possible the term is limited to the types of works defined in the previous few sections (i.e. works which began life as crown copyright); I don't think there has been a court ruling on that. But when parsing a legal text, it's a bit hard to ignore the actual words. If they had said "crown copyright", or specifically referred to the previous sections the way section 179 does, it would be more clear. The moral rights certainly still do exist; the term "copyright" as we use it generally conforms to the "economic right" specifically. Moral rights are usually not transferrable (so you can't license them away), and in some countries never expire, so they are a different animal. We consider them non-copyright restrictions, but of course follow them (name the authors, etc.). But they are not grounds for deletion -- it's the status of the economic right we are concerned with. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The local copies of the flag are listed for discussion in enwiki. --George Ho (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC); edited, 20:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Bidgee (talk · contribs) emailed the Minister for Indigenous Australians a while ago to inquire about the copyright status. I assume they never got back to him? Ixfd64 (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The DR was open for ten days and generated comments on all sides of the issues. Nothing was to be gained by leaving it open longer. As for which way I go, that's not a fair question, as you ask only because you'd like to hold me up against Yann if I go that way. I didn't comment in the DR because I tend to agree with Carl -- it's a very close call. Strictly, the letter of our rules requires deletion because files must be free for any use by anybody. However, as Carl points out, the only limit on that here is Australian flagmakers and routinely we ignore copyrights which may exist in countries other the country of origin and the US. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

So far I have not received a response from the Minister’s office, I have asked Wikimedia Australia if they could take on the matter (I just don’t have the time required to keep the pressure on) but not have had a response from them as well.

During my times when I’m not at work, I have been trying to research[6]. It is very possible it can be Crown Copyright and have restrictions (commercial production of flags and bunting limited to a single company and moral rights remain with the author/creator). Sadly I’ve lost some links to the reading, so have started from scratch again. Bidgee (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Most likely, the government simply did not purchase the already-existing flag-making license. The government would now get the royalties from that contract, but they probably didn't care enough about that aspect to buy that company out of their deal. So, those rights under that license remain in full, same as they ever have, and is not Crown Copyright. Seems like the government bought everything else, though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Most likley, Bidgee will get a response eventually. It may not include what was requested though. The best way would be to write a hand written letter which will get attention, rather than a email that will fall in with a lot of junk mail. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yann should not have closed this discussion. Even if we agree with the close, involved editors should not close a discussion. This is a sign of immaturity, conflict of interest and possible corruption. Closures here should be above criticism, and so closure should be by someone who has not expressed a point of view on the issue. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Import a page?

i'd like to create a local version of en:Help:Log by lazily copying the whole page. for attribution reasons, is it better to import the page so that the page history is retained? if yes, please import it to Help:Log and i will work on it. RZuo (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Imported only the last revision. Feel free to just copy&paste pages from enwiki to Commons yourself without asking admins to import them. But remember to mention this in the edit summary for the sake of attribution. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Spam links

These wonderful people add links to image descriptions of cialis and probably many others. And they also repeatedly revert their spam link removal. How can we fight this cancer? --Palosirkka (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Those wonderful accounts are now blocked. Depending on the conditions, we have myriads of options including protecting pages, adding urls to spam-denylist, and even creating abuse filters. You need to explain the situation in detail and provide more examples, so that we can take the appropriate action. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant and political image filenames and text

This search finds ~55 images (pictures of geometrid moths from Flickr) that have titles and text content that is irrelevant to the image and political in nature. I came across them when I was looking for images to illustrate entries at English Wiktionary. I have no idea what is involved in renaming the files and deleting the objectionable (irrelevant, political) text. I do know that I won't be using images with this kind of file name and content. DCDuring (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I haven't searched to find if there were more like this, but I wouldn't be surprised. DCDuring (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Orizan as the uploader of the first one.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I noticed these a while ago and made a few manual move requests. It's Flickr user khteWisconsin wanting to use their platform as a nature photographer to get lengthy political messages across in the filenames and descriptions of their Flickr photos, which are often imported unchanged to Commons. A search for "today's mass extinction" turns up hundreds more.

I was considering applying batch edits to blank the descriptions and add move requests (all to "unidentified butterfly (flickr ID number)"), but hadn't got back to it. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

• Ram Barroz (talk · contribs)
• Zonprokerala2022 (talk · contribs)
• Moviebuff2022 (talk · contribs)

Raising this here per COM:SOCK. This is three accounts showing the same behaviour and in uploading copyrighted photos. Moviebuff2022 has been adding Zonprokerala2022's photos to Wikipedia articles over at Wikipedia, and all three of them are adding "This photo was taken at Ottapalam in Palakkad District, Kerala." kinds of free text to the ends of image summaries, with Ram Barroz and Zonprokerala2022 both adding "on a movie set" to descriptions of where images came from (I think meaning that it's a still from a movie). Splitting uploads over various accounts makes it harder to show a history of poor understanding of copyright, and perhaps this is a longer-term sock. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done I blocked Zonprokerala2022 and Moviebuff2022 for abusing multiple accounts. Ram Barroz is warned, and should be blocked as well if uploading more copyvios. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Yann: Thanks. A check for other images called "on a movie set" turns up File:Anusithara In a Movie Set.jpg from Minnal Empuraan (talk · contribs) in much the same style, the account being registered a day before Ram Barroz, if that's also worth a block. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Lord Belbury: Could you please create a checkuser request? Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Remove mediasearch-tester rights of locked account

Special:centralauth/GDubuc (WMF) thanks! AlPaD (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Spammer

Special:Contributions/Unioncowork --Palosirkka (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks &  Done Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hi, Could an admin revdel this and my revert after please, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 12:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done only IP's edit. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Brilliant many thanks 4nn1l2, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 12:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

File:A2z channel 11 logo 2020.png

Hi guys, I just wanna report File:A2z channel 11 logo 2020.png because it seems like it violates under COM:SCOPE. This discussion was originally discussed at User talk:JWilz12345#File:A2z channel 11 logo 2020.png and File:Gma 1995.png, but for me, it seems like it violates it. Kindly please tell me if it really violates it or if not, it is a tricky case LOL. The information on the user talk page I mentioned seems to be less understood. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. As the logo is unused, you can nominate it for regular (not speedy) deletion as out of scope. The discussion should be in the deletion request, not here. Taivo (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Taivo: LOL okay, I reported it here in the first place because I am not sure if it really violates it. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done: DR submitted by SeanJ 2007 (Commons:Deletion requests/File:A2z channel 11 logo 2020.png). -M.nelson (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I think these are copyvios

[7] and [8]. --Palosirkka (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Nominated for deletion by Minorax (Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by KMBDENNISTRIDENT). -M.nelson (talk) 09:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Possible reuploads of previously deleted files

Can an admin take a look at File:BBC World Service.png, File:BBC World Service 2019.svg and File:BBC World Service red.svg (three different files but essentially they're same the logo) to check whether they're the same as the files that were deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Logos of BBC divisions or Commons:Deletion requests/File:BBC World Service.png? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:BBC World Service.png resulted in the deletion of a completely different, far more complicated logo at File:BBC World Service.png, uploaded in 2015. Commons:Deletion requests/Logos of BBC divisions resulted in the deletion of a blue File:BBC World Service.png, uploaded in 2010, but File:BBC World Service red.svg which was part of the same DR was never deleted. In my opinion, none of the images you have mentioned qualifies for speedy deletion per COM:CSD#G4. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for checking on these files King of Hearts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. The current logo is ineligible for copyright and I relicensed it. One file is nominated for regular deletion as duplicate, that's enough. Taivo (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

official Republic of Korea photographs add-on license

There seem to be over 7000 files on Commons with this nasty add-on license tucked onto standard licenses that are machine checked and Commons approved. The license addition reads

"This official Republic of Korea photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way. Also, it may not be used in any type of commercial, advertisement, product or promotion that in any way suggests approval or endorsement from the government of the Republic of Korea."

I've bolded the offending parts that make those incompatible with Commons. On the other hand they have given the standard license... So two conflicting licenses really. I'm no lawyer so I'm very confused. Why do people have to make things so messy?! --Palosirkka (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The licence is quite clear about this:

8e) This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You. This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You.

So if the work is licensed by CC-BY-SA 2.0 as implied on the Flickr page by the link to the deed of the licence, the addition is moot. It might be interpreted as an alternative licence for those who do not want to use the work under CC-BY-SA.

The legal risk for us and our reusers is that the work may have been licensed under CC-BY-SA by somebody without the powers to do so. I suppose that is partly covered by provisions on good faith use, but those differ between jurisdictions and the possible damage might be shared between the reuser, the rights owner and the person acting without necessary privileges with any arbitrary logic.

–LPfi (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Well spotted eagle eyes! :) So all is good in the Commons land once again. The legal risk is always with us here. --Palosirkka (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Removing an attack image uploaded by enwiki blocked user.

Hey there. Enwiki user here, never edited on Commons before tonight, so I'm not entirely familiar with the rules here and this might be in the wrong place. User:Carfian (contribs) was just blocked over on enwiki for among other reasons image spam. They were trying to insert this attack image into an article. Is that all I need to do, or is there something else? If this is in the wrong place, let me know where to move it to and I'll happily move. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Link to notification on user's talk page of this discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

 Blocked We simply don't want such users here at Commons. 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Request image deletion

Hello, please delete the image File: Mohammad Amin Mirmaradzehi.jpg I uploaded this image incorrectly and its permissions are incorrect and the image is generally corrupted. I request to remove it. I will upload the image with the correct permission and from another source. Thanks. Ozeyr (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done There is no such file as stated above, but I deleted File:Mohammad Amin Mirmoradzehi.jpg. De728631 (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Tagline/ru

Please, can someone edit MediaWiki:Tagline/ru content from the current to "Из Викисклада, хранилища свободных медиафайлов" to match the original string from MediaWiki:Tagline in English? (From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository)? Thank you! — Pacha Tchernof (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@EugeneZelenko and A.Savin: I checked the phrase with Google Translator and it looks valid to me. If any of you agrees, we can change the tagline accordingly. De728631 (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It's exact translation already. In Russian language WMF projects Wikimedia Commons is translated as Викисклад. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. I changed the page to this custom text. De728631 (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Mexico City Metro pictograms (again)

A few weeks ago, I reported Alc754 (talk · contribs) here because they uploaded over 150 copyrighted pictograms to Commons. They were deleted. Now ALF295 (talk · contribs) reuploaded the same pictograms under the same titles (even this one that says "Taltenco" instead of "Tlaltenco"), but citing a different license from that Alc754 used: {{LGACDMX}}. The license does exist, the license does apply to the Mexico City Metro system. The license, however, explicitly says this (translated): "This license extends only to the contents of the Government of the City of Mexico and not to any intellectual property rights of third parties that may accidentally be contained in the contents." [9] en:Lance Wyman designed these logos (the early ones, not all of them). The metro system, additionally, has the following warning (translated; it can be found at the bottom of the logos): "Iconography and typography are registered through Mexican Institute of Industrial Property. Its use, reproduction, modification, and commercialization are forbidden without written permission", it is found in those logos created by Wyman; it is found in those logos designed by another person. This was already discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/Mexico City Metro 2D pictograms, which stayed open for several months. Out of these logos, only three are vitually PD. File:B.3-OLÍMPICA (2).png as it depicts the Olympic rings, File:3.11-HOSPITAL GENERAL (2).png, which depicts the Red Cross logo, and File:2.1-TASQUEÑA (2).png, which is just a moon. The rest are too complex. Tbhotch™ 20:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Mondragón Juan (talk · contribs) also uploaded a lot of these icons last week and the week before, under a straight (and seemingly incorrect) CC-Attribution-Sharealike licence. --Lord Belbury (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked two users indefinitely for sockpuppetry and deleted their uploads, except simple ones. Taivo (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Theynfo (talk · contribs), inactive since November, has now started uploading similar-looking icons of the Mexico metro, tagged as "own work". --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Spammer too

Special:Contributions/Peach_Capital_INC --Palosirkka (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Palosirkka: I notified the user on their user talk page, as you are required to above.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done I don't think there is anything to do here. No contributions since Nov 21. @Palosirkka: You can warn users to stop advertising yourself. If it was a more blatant spammer I would have blocked Gbawden (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Differing concepts of copyright and copyvio

Hi admins, I have a bit of an issue with speedy delete markings being reverted into "permission missing" by one particular admin.

The situation is this: I only mark an image with "speedy delete" when the situation is quite clear and the copyvio is really obvious. That, IMO, is the case when 1. the uploader is not identical with the copyright holder, plus 2. the photographer has either published their pictures elsewhere, clearly marking them as copyrighted, or they have put their name plus copyright info and maybe even contact data into the exif data of the image. How much clearer can a photographer make it that they want their copyright protected?

In 95% of cases, these images do get deleted quickly by whichever administrator's turn it happens to be, so I have reason to assume that my assessment generally isn't all wrong. There's only one exception, King of Hearts, on a regular basis, reverts the speedy delete, not even to a regular deletion process, but to a "permission missing" only. Like he did with with most of this user's contributions which I had marked as speedy delete candidates. I had addressed him on his user page about this previously, and I must admit that I do not find his reply convincing.

It is certainly not always the case that images marked with "permission missing" do get checked again in a timely manner and get deleted after the "one week grace period" as he claimed in his reply, so we end up with blatant copyvios staying on Commons much longer than inevitable.

I don't understand why anyone would want to keep these obvious copyvios online for longer than necessary for another reason. To the best of my understanding, a picture can be undeleted in case a permission does come in at some later point in time. So why keep those copyvios online in hopes that a permission might be coming in at some time in the future?

Thanks @all for looking into this, and @King of Hearts, no hard feelings, just a difference in our understanding of how best to protect copyright. --217.239.4.223 17:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

You need to put yourself in the shoes of someone who has been falsely accused of copyright violations, like NickWilson1964, and maybe your perspective will change. It is important to assume good faith. The images you have mentioned are not copyright violations, but rather images whose status requires additional verification. If that verification is not forthcoming, then we can delete them per COM:PCP, but PCP is never a valid reason for speedy deletion; it is a last resort, after all interested parties have been given an opportunity to clarify the copyright status. "To the best of my understanding, a picture can be undeleted in case a permission does come in at some later point in time." - In the meantime, real harm is being done, IMO much greater than the harm done if a copyvio remains here for an extra week or two. What is important is to educate, not to shoot first and ask questions later. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

See, and that's where we disagree and why I think it might be helpful to get a few third party opinions. I see much greater harm in violating a person's obvious copyright. These were all extremely obvious cases where the photographers themselves had made it perfectly clear they intend to protect their copyright, either by clearly marking their images when they published them somewhere on the internet, or by putting their info into the exif data. What more can they be expected to do to make that point? How are they to protect their rights, if not by these means?

It's all fine and dandy to assume good faith, but the standard case is that the uploader has bought the photo from the photographer and now, in all good faith, believes they can do what they will with it. I am not assuming any criminal intentions, but I sure am assuming a lack of knowledge on the part of those uploaders who usually upload these photos as "own work". --217.239.4.223 00:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

And I'm telling you that there are many possibilities here, for example: 1) the uploader is the photographer, but they are using a pseudonym for their username and their real name for the EXIF (or vice versa), so it is not obvious; 2) the uploader is an agent/representative for the photographer, who has authorized them to publish the image; or 3) organizations often buy out the rights for commissioned images (I've dealt with many such cases as a VRT agent). Don't assume that it's always someone who paid for a professional photoshoot without reading the terms and conditions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with King of Hearts, here. We do not speedy delete files per COM:PCP. It is perfectly fine to tag them with "permission missing " or nominate them for deletion via Commons:Deletion requests to allow more time for discussion and for the uploader to clarify the source. This is a generally acceptable standard. There are instances where uploader uses a rented camera without knowing that the Exif metadata has been customised to reflect the name of the camera owner. We cannot consider this as outright copyright violation. Tagging with "permission missing" will prompt them to fix that problem, either by sending permission to our support team or provide other evidences to prove ownership of the media files. Regards. T Cells^Talk 23:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. Not sure I understand your reasoning though. If obvious copyvio is not a reason for speedy delete, then why does it explicitly say so in the Commons policies? Why do you even have a template {{copyvio}} if there is a general consensus ("We do not speedy delete files...") that this must not be done?

To make this less theoretical, I'd ask you to be more specific about the above mentioned examples.

• These images (skip the first two, it wasn't about those) are clearly marked as copyrighted by the photographer on the internet (I included the link in the copyvio note). Neither of the two names of the uploading account is identical with this photographer. So how can this possibly be about a "rented camera" or whatever other possibilities you imagined? Or how would they "buy the rights" by German copyright laws?
• In this instance, the photographer has made it clear as can be that he wants his copyright protected by putting every imaginable copyright information into the exif data. Put yourselves in the shoes of the photographer: What more are they to do if they want to protect their work?

With that "permission missing" label, we now have a blatant copyvio needlessly sitting here since December. How does that agree with COM:PCP? Sorry, I really don't get it. --217.239.4.223 23:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Obvious copyvios are a reason for speedy delete, but a copyright declaration and the user name differing from the name declared at Tinybe do not eliminate the possibility of legal upload. The user name could be a pseudonym for a group to which Günzel belongs, and the Tinybe might not have an exclusive licence. Probably the upload is a copyvio, but we don't know. The second case could be the borrowed camera one or the company having bought the rights (and neither party checking the EXIF). As the company has verified its account, a legal upload seems probable – and I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of a photographer that got his photo removed from his client's site because he forgot to remove the EXIF. –LPfi (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Rubbish dump

I think we could manage without the contributions of this gentleman Special:ListFiles/Pageger. --Palosirkka (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. I deleted all his uploads as self-promotion and/or copyright violation. Also I closed 2 DR-s. Taivo (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

erroneous deletion request

My deletion request for the picture Sad Person and Lunni.jpg was not possible due to a blocking term and was canceled. I therefore ask an administrator who can bypass this blocking term to complete the deletion request. Thanks in advance. --Gymnicus (talk) 08:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gymnicus: I don't see anything in your block and filter log. What exactly is "a blocking term"? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 09:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh: No, it's not that I'm banned or anything, it's that I can't create the page Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sad Person and Lunni.jpg. There I get the following reason: "The page title or edit you have tried to create cannot be created or edited by you at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, used to prevent vandalism." I hope you as administrators can work around this. --Gymnicus (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gymnicus: I created the page for you, but I'm not an admin. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 09:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh: Interesting that you can create the page. Maybe it's because I'm not a confirmed user or something. In any case, thanks for your help. --Gymnicus (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gymnicus: That's because I'm a template editor and template editors have tboverride. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 09:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Now the file is correctly nominated for regular deletion. I deleted speedily scaled-down duplicate. Taivo (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

merging request

I uploaded a new revision of File:Venus Berlin 2019 135.webm but mistyped "b" for "B": File:Venus berlin 2019 135.webm - The file needs to be moved/merged with the correct title.

• Why not deleting and reuploaeding? Because it is more than 700MB big and uploads of this size do mostly not work at all, but if they do for you, I have about 70 files needing reupload and I am happy to give them to you for revision upload.
• What if this is not done soon? A bot will mark the file as copyvio and some admin will delete it. For me the less tiresome solution as I can simply restart the uploading process for a dozen more times until it succeeds (I have a very stable flatrate for uploading) C.Suthorn (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there any difference between the two files File:Venus berlin 2019 135.webm and File:Venus Berlin 2019 135.webm? I don't see why they should be merged. We might just keep the "Berlin" one and delete the other. De728631 (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The original one is missing IPTC meta information, the new one has correct IPTC meta information. --C.Suthorn (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Still, why do we need to preserve the old incomplete information when the new upload seems to be all ok? In such cases we usually delete ther first upload and keep the new file because there is no significant edit history for the first file. De728631 (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Because in the past a big publishing company has stolen content created by me, I needed to pay a lawyer and finally succeded, amog other reasons because I had a prove of the time I published my content. and that is the orginal upload. --C.Suthorn (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done I merged the two files. Please check if any information is missing on the description page, but I copied the last available information from the old file. De728631 (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Description page is identical, only SDC data is missing, but that will be restored by Schlurcherbot or Botmultichill. --C.Suthorn (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I somehow doubt this guy is here to help

The perp. --Palosirkka (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Palosirkka: That concerns the English Wikipedia, not Commons. Yann (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palosirkka (talk • contribs) 08:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

References missing in graph

File:Approximate chronology of Heinrich events vs Dansgaard-Oeschger events and Antarctic Isotope Maxima.png

at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Approximate_chronology_of_Heinrich_events_vs_Dansgaard-Oeschger_events_and_Antarctic_Isotope_Maxima.png#file.

The otherwise very good grafik urgently needs the original resources! Moreover, times have to run from left to right hand which can easily and must be achieved by multiplying the x-axis data ba "-1", because the plotter cannot understand "BP/BC".HJHolm (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

And that is nothing that requires administrative action. You may want to contact User talk:Goeland1234 who uploaded the image, or post a request at the COM:Village pump. However, as long as there are no legal issues like copyright infringement or offensive content, there is nothing we can do about it here. De728631 (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Uploads by User:Bruh3ll0

I've deleted a load of obvious copyvios uploaded by User:Bruh3ll0 (uploads); the rest I think are mostly out of copyright but should be checked over for correct attribution and licensing, and whether they are just low resolution duplicates of pics we already have here. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Please delete קובץ:אות ותעודת מעפיל.jpg

Hey. Please delete File:אות ותעודת מעפיל.jpg which contains personal details of a person, including full name, address and ID number. Thank you. GHA (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Grouppage-suppress

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T112147

The oversight user group has been renamed to suppress. Will someone please create this page with {{ns:Project}}:Oversighters as it's content to link to the actual policy page regarding suppress. Thanks, Magogre (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hulged  Done AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks AntiCompositeNumber. --Magogre (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit of a protected file: is the consensus strong enough?

Hello,

On File talk:Flag of France.svg#Edit request 2022 6 (edit: 7) users agree to edit the file against 1 who does not. Can an administrator do the edit? Or should we request comments from more people? --GrandEscogriffe (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Somebody...

...please delete File:BM4OFIGQRPP7LCNUMNKQB3GASI.webp. Uploader just blocked on en-wiki; about to see what else is there. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Please use {{SD}} from next time. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Uploads by Alan B Christ

Images of a thesis which seem out of scope, original research by not reliable source. The first cover is copyrighted by Scott Banks, and illustrated by Alan B Christ. A second cover lacks these notices. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Alan_B_Christ Hypnôs (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Alan B Christ. Yann (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Kurstine blubaugh 4.jpg et al

Revenge porn posting according to a person requesting removal, remove quickly, the images are appearing in the deletion queue, resulting in the Streisand effect. There are several in the series. --RAN (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Deleted. However, please also note the large banner at the top of the page: Do not report depictions of child sexual abuse or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

KrinkleBot

@Krinkle, Steinsplitter, and Legoktm:

We have a highly important image which the internet is regularly referencing and which requires frequent updates. However, KrinkleBot has fully protected it because it's on he.wikipedia's main page. The bot has no instructions on how to stop it or opt a file out so I am blocking the bot.

By all means anyone may unblock once this issue is resolved. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I have manually added semi-protection to the image due to high visibility. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: I manually exempted that image in the source code for now, we can implement a proper exclusion page in the future I suppose. Legoktm (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I had already asked them (User talk:Krinkle#Stopping the bot) to add such a feature, but they just ignored me. Hope blocking the bot makes them think again about this. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not about "making" people think, it's about actually explaining yourself. I've replied on my talk page. Krinkle (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the word "make", please see COM:BOT which says "The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator [...] The bot operator is responsible for the prompt repair of any damage caused by a bot which operates incorrectly. Bot operators must ensure that they make themselves available for dealing with user queries relating to the bot, and that they promptly fix any identified bugs." [emphasis mine] 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

68 bad faith deletion requests

As described at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism#Pageger, a user was upset that I gave them an "end of copyvios" warning yesterday and responded by putting eight random images of mine up for deletion, followed by 60 other images from other people, mostly just posting a rationale of "not own work". The user has now been blocked for vandalism. Can someone with AWB or similar access put a speedy close comment on (or actually close) these requests? Other editors are already wasting their energy engaging in good faith with the discussions. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Working on it - the ones I miss someone else will close in due course Gbawden (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Appreciated, thank you. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Image deletion request

Hi, Bit of a strange one but could an admin delete File:Peace Van.jpg so that I can reupload with the Flickr number in title please?, I've saved the upload desc data offline ,
I've uploaded a difference angle of the vehicle (File:Broken Peace Van (17183030175).jpg) but that includes the number and this one doesn't so for consistency IMHO both should include the number - Of course I could just wipe the number but then that implies Helper2011 and myself are the original photographers when we're not - Most would associate the randomised number with Flickr,
Many thanks, Kind Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 19:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. - FitIndia ^{Talk ✉} 20:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Fitindia greatly appreciate your help, Take care and stay safe mate, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 21:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

User:SoNoCopyrightHuh

• SoNoCopyrightHuh (talk · contribs)

An hour and a half after User:Ken190 was blocked for uploading copyvio images of lizards yesterday, User:SoNoCopyrightHuh joined Commons to upload copyrighted photos of lizards. Like Ken, SoNo mistakenly believes that Commons is just asking for links to the web pages they took the photos from ([10], [11]). --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

•  Blocked. - FitIndia ^{Talk ✉} 17:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Translation administrator removal

Hi, Can a admin please remove my Translation administrator rights as I haven't used it in the past year and will not be using it anytime soon. Thank you. --- FitIndia ^{Talk ✉} 19:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fitindia: According to Special:ListGroupRights § sysop, admins can grant and revoke TA-ship for themself. If you don't want to do this yourself, please ask at COM:BN. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 19:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh I am aware as I added myself as a TA, I requested it here and not on COM:BN as a fellow admin can remove TA rights. - FitIndia ^{Talk ✉} 19:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think they can. Only 'crats can revoke TA from other admins. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 19:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Fitindia, admins can grant or revoke this right to or from themselves, but not others. See these lines please. Thus, you have two choices: 1) revoke it from yourself; 2) ask the revocation on the crats' board. Anyway, fellow admins can't help you in this matter. Regards 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

4nn1l2 I have gone ahead and revoked it myself. thank you. Regards. - FitIndia ^{Talk ✉} 02:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Pageger

• Pageger (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

VOA, already blocked. Help needed to close all DRs/revert all edits. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Yann:  Done.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

More edits to revert: help needed.

• Pagegez (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Rosenzweign (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yann (talk • contribs) 08:00, 27 February 2022‎ (UTC)

@Yann:  Done.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Soul Train

I have indefinitely blocked Russian-speaking user Soul Train from Commons. The reason is, this user in Russian Wikipedia is openly supporting the military invasion by Putin into Ukraine. (GoogleTranslate of that diff's essential part)

I know this is an out-of-process block which may cost me my sysop bit. But for me it's basically a matter of principle; if there is no support from the community, then it's most likely not my community and not my project, so be it anyways.

Commons is an international project, we have users from different countries, languages, religions, and yes with very different political views too. But IMHO extremist political views that use public comments to support absolute evil have no place in any Wikimedia project. Killing hundreds and thousands of civilians is absolute evil, in particular if this cannot be explained by self-defence but only by lies and cheap propaganda. You can then justify yourself as much as you want "this is just a collateral damage", "this is for good purpose" etc.pp.., this is null and void. German Nazis were absolute evil, and now with this invasion Putin has impressively shown the world that he's not better in any way.

What happens now is not even to compare to Vietnam War, just as example. Vietnam is far away from America and never was their brother nation, unlike what Ukraine for Russia always has been. Ukraine is not Chechnya, not Afghanistan, not Syria. Ukraine actually should be absolutely off-limit for Russia, for any mental healthy Russian politician. Anyone who lets kill Ukrainians surely one day will be killing Russians too. That's what is particularly pervert and disgusting about the recent events.

I'm ashamed, I'm demotivated and broken because of this all. I'm suffering from depression, at the moment I don't know how it goes further with my work on Wikimedia projects. I sincerely hope you understand me, I sincerely hope most of you colleagues agree that Commons is a project of the civilized world and here is no place for supporters of war crimes, nazism and the like.

Let me also note that Soul Train is not just "yet another account", but also one of leading members of "Wikimedia Russia". I hope WMF is reading this one day and takes the proper consequence, especially if this statement by ST is to see as a statement in behalf of "Wikimedia Russia". I also hope for solidarity of sysops of other important projects such as English WP, and same step towards this user in their project. In ideal case, he should be globally banned.

Wikimedia is a great movement that should unite people from all over the world, not divide. War is never a solution. Not all Russians are like Putin. Give peace a chance. Stay safe.

Regards --A.Savin 21:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

What does this wall of text mean at all? Please unblock the user as soon as possible. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I personally agree with 4nn1l2. Since A.Savin have just indicated that they are retiring from Commons, can another sysop unblock Soul Train first? I don't know what WMF will do, but to me this block is inappropriate given that the action was not even made here on Commons. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 23:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe that account will be unblocked in at most 24 hours from now. Considering the retirement notice on the blocking admin's userpage, I'll do that myself if nobody beats me to it. But I think it's wise to give some time to A.Savin to rectify their error and prevent a possible de-RFA. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to unblock and sincerely hope Putin ends up on the list of terror states, just like your country. Fuck the war. Fuck terrorists. Fuck fascists. I'm sure the day will come also Wikimedia "contributors" who support this shit will pay their price. Regards --A.Savin 09:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I still urge you to come to your senses, and happily give you a full 24 hours to reflect on your behavior. This is not about me, my country, war, terrorism, or fascism. This is about Commons. We need to make sure that rule of law applies here. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Calm down please, this is the 21st century and I believe Commons doesn't lose its civility just because a war is happening somewhere on this world. Things not directly related to Commons and its scope should not be the reason for anything here. Were I you, I would have a nice drink and then go to bed. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 09:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Surely you would say the same if someone wrote "Heil Hitler" on their own userpage? Wow. --A.Savin 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Commons is an independent project. What happens on ruwiki has no bearing here. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

At latest the anti-RHE campaign has taught us all that this isn't the case. --A.Savin 10:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. Even if I have some personal impression against Hitler, that doesn't mean I can block/revert an user who worships him whenever I want. Worshipping Hitler doesn't necessarily make them a dictator or an antisemitist – it can be that they are a fine art student. As long as they don't disrupt our projects or violate local/global/WMF policies, I'll be fine with them sharing their mind. Again, get a nice cup of en:WP:COFFEE and sit down. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 11:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

LOL. --A.Savin 11:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Asking for opinion Ukrainian colleagues @NickK, Mykola7, George Chernilevsky, Anntinomy, and Стефанко1982: . If they tell me I am wrong, then OK. --A.Savin 11:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Personally I, as most Ukrainians, think such hate speech has no place in any civilised project, Wikimedia included. Since 2013 Soul Train has published a lot of anti-Ukrainian hate speech. I am however obviously biased, but I don't think his actions are UCoC-compatible and I think they deserve a global, not Commons-only ban — NickK (talk) 11:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

From the point of view of Commons rules, blocking is certainly wrong, but I support your decision from a moral point of view. Support for terrorism cannot take place here. This is where the Trust and Safety teem needs to be called upon to take appropriate globally action for such open support for terrorism. --Mykola7 (talk) 11:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for using the automatic translator. The user uses in his edits theses of Russian false propaganda. Here is another example in description of this edit. I support blocking such users, but not only in one project, but globally. I will not tell about terms of blocking.--Стефанко1982 (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that the blocked user's actions are not UCoC-compatible (or compatible with work in encyclopedic project at all). Sneeuwschaap (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Please A.Savin, as you have stated on my user page, you are in shock, you feel betrayed by your country, you are hurt and can't think clearly now. I would urge you to please not do any admin work for a week or so. You can voice your concern, but please let people less impaired by this conflict take care of things. They are just as dedicated to the Wiki project as you are. If you continue like this, you might do things you later regret. --Cart (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'll add that there's plenty you can do without using admin tools. Gathering diffs/evidence of behavior that isn't compatible with the UCoC, for example, and presenting it to ruwp functionaries, or to Wikimedia's Trust & Safety department if you do not think ruwp is able to handle the UCoC issues effectively. It's much more time-consuming than just blocking an account, but more likely to have a longer term effect. (btw I say this without having any knowledge of the involved people/projects than what's presented here -- just general advice) — Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• It'll be good idea to look on Ukrainian Wikipedia for very similar things. Conflicts always have more than one side. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Comment I feel quite the same as Mykola7 above. Apology of war and violence has no place on any Wikimedia projects. Such people should be reported to WMF T&S, and banned. However the current block is not supported by Commons policies, so such a block should be a community decision. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Word! Mosbatho (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Comment OK, I would like to thank all for the comments, of which most are constructive. I have just requested the T&S for review (pinging JEissfeldt (WMF) to let know). Anyone who thinks ST should be unblocked until further notice, please feel free to do. I guess we can close here and move on. Regards --A.Savin 22:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Fair enough. A possibility for unblock should be reserved though after excuses and denouncing such claims.--Abiyoyo (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Blocking a user due to having an opinion sounds extremely wrong to me. SummerKrut (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done I unblocked the user, and am more than happy to turn a blind eye to A.Savin's lapse of judgement this time. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

IP block request

Hi, Could someone block 5.215.134.36 who's blanking and vandalising various pages, IP's done thing constructive since being here, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Already globally blocked. Yann (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Credit where credit's due Meta stewards truly are amazing!, Thanks AntiCompositeNumber and Yann for your help greatly appreciated, Thank, –Davey2010^Talk 15:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Moving to retain history

Please help to solve a moving request at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/Category moves (Category:Russo-Ukrainian war). Overwriting may be necessary here--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the point to rename this. "war" doesn't need a W. Yann (talk) 09:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Zimmermann 1911 Spokane Baseball Card mis identified in Wikimedia

As corrected in Library of Congress, the 1911 Zimmerman baseball cards T12, T4 by Tobacco Company Obak have been misidentified on your site.

The Zimmerman on those cards is L.E. NOT Heinie.

If you check the players on the 1911 Spokane Indians PCL baseball team, Zimmerman is claerly identified as L.E. Zimmmerman. If you check the baseball record of Heinie Zimmmerman you will see he never played for Spokane.

Fred Toulch Toronto, ON report@rogers.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by FredToulch (talk • contribs) 19:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Links for convenience:

• File:Zimmerman, Spokane Team, baseball card portrait LCCN2007685558.tif
• File:Zimmerman, Spokane Team, baseball card portrait LCCN2007685558.jpg
• File:Zimmerman of 1911 Spokane baseball team.jpg

 Not done: Nothing to do. File:Heinie zimmerman.jpg has been renamed and redirected in 2020. --Achim55 (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Best Music Award 2021

Could somebody add my "best music award", received from Tokyo University, https://www.cmmr2021.gttm.jp/awards/ in https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_F._Gerber please.

Karl F. Gerber received Best Music Award 2021 from CMMR Tokyo university. received the 2021 best music award from Tokyo University — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2001:A61:1320:A901:ACC9:6ABA:CDDC:7E42 (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. This would be illegal. We do not have permission from sculptor (award creator). Taivo (talk) 08:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

User:TGRSupra2022

• TGRSupra2022 (talk · contribs)

Another sock of Yuiyui2001 (talk · contribs), reuploading File:PNP PRO COR logo.png six minutes after Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nissan2022 deleted it, along with several more apparently-hoax Philippine police logos. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Blocked indef. File a RFCU? Gbawden (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gbawden: I filed one as suggested at Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Yuiyui2001, but it was declined as unnecessary because the user was already blocked as a duck sock. Did I misunderstand something here? --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

RFCU is not for obvious cases. Please review the instructions at COM:RFCU and, for example, note that {{Duck}} is a "Request declined" indicator. Эlcobbola _talk 13:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit of a protected file: is the consensus strong enough?

Hello,

On File talk:Flag of France.svg#Edit request 2022 6 (edit: 7) users agree to edit the file against 1 who does not. Can an administrator do the edit? Or should we request comments from more people? --GrandEscogriffe (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The request was archived with no answer so I'm trying again. At least some guidance about what to do would help. Also are you ok with archiving the requests less frequently? Maybe 15 days instead of 5. --GrandEscogriffe (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

You made an edit request there. There are maybe 50 outstanding requests at Category:Commons protected edit requests including one I made last April. Adding this here again and again and asking for it to stay up here longer isn't solving the problem of backlogs. Why not create a different image file and if there is a consensus to use that one, then this could be deprecated but it seems like you are asking an administrator to get a load of headaches from people on a dozen wikis based on a dozen people on this one to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I have answered your point about the flag on the file talk.

What should we do to solve the problem of backlogs, then? Again, I'm asking from guidance from the admins about what the process is. Unlike this one, most edit requests have no comments on their talk pages whether in favor or against. Should non admins go give their opinions about the pending edit requests? Is one person allowed to obstruct a file change against a super-majority? Should more people apply for adminship? --GrandEscogriffe (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

IP block exempt

Dear colleagues,

User:Africasounvi is a new contributor from Benin. For some specific reasons she needs an IP block exempt, that I granted her on fr-Wikipedia, but she mostly intends to contribute on Commons. Can you please exempt her here?

(for information, @Adoscam)

Best regards, JohnNewton8 (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit protected

Please could someone action the week-old edit requests on:

• File talk:VOA video of Eastern Ukraine during 2022 Russian invasion.webm
• File talk:Последствия удара ракеты по Голосеевскому району киева (6).jpg
• File talk:VOA video of Eastern Ukraine during 2022 Russian invasion.webm

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. --A.Savin 13:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Image deletion request 2

Hi, COuld an admin delete File:Human tits.jpg and File:Selfie of a girl.png please as there's no proof the girl pictured had ever consented to such private imagery of her being shared to millions of people. Both images are currently at DR but IMHO both should be speedy deleted - If these weren't uploaded under malicious intent then the uploader's more than welcome to visit OTRS,
Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 22:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Done (although Achim55 just beat me to one) - Easy enough to delete as copyvios. Both selfies of different persons, so uploader by definition cannot be the author of both as purported. Also elsewhere before upload (e.g. File:Selfie of a girl.png here). Эlcobbola _talk 22:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Many thanks elcobbola and Achim55 for your swift help/actions it's greatly appreciated - Admittedly I was unable to look closely due to the setting I'm in so was a quick look, Anyway thanks again, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 23:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Finding Deleted photos: 315e Regiment D'Infanterie

All,

Below is the link to where multiple 315e Regiment photos were deleted

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Herveroller

I am currently researching this regiment and therefore would be very valuable to see this photos. Therefore my question, is there a way to get access to see deleted photos such as these? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyonsajh85 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Any help here please? Lyonsajh85 (talk) 10:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

You cannot get access to deleted photos. Admins can see the file and documentation. There was no source mentioned on the file I studied. The best way is to ask the original uploader. Perhaps they still have own copies. Ellywa (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The user is no longer active, as they have not replied. What are the options here, these are important historical photos of men that fought and died during the Great War. Lyonsajh85 (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Lyonsajh85, the uploader User:Herveroller has e-mail enabled. Have a try that way if you didn't already. --Achim55 (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

How do I see that and email him? Lyonsajh85 (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Lyonsajh85: You can go to Commons:deletion review and ask for them to be restored for 24 hours so you can download them. Nothing is actually deleted, they are just hidden. If you do get in touch with the uploader ask if the images were taken by a family member, if they were, they can be released under a "Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs" license. --RAN (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Adamrocks78

Please hide the first revision of User:Adamrocks78 dated 00:51, 5 March 2022‎ (UTC} because it contains sensitive info.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 02:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. - FitIndia ^{Talk ✉} 09:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fitindia: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Move request

Hi, sorry about requesting a move here, but I am linking to this commons page from an external site so it would be nice to fix a typo in the filename before that. Wrong name: File:Kallion_kirkko_ja_puretut_Sidltasaarenkadun_toimistotalot_-_Marit_Henriksson.jpg, Correct name: File:Kallion_kirkko_ja_puretut_Siltasaarenkadun_toimistotalot_-_Marit_Henriksson.jpg. Ie. there is external d in the filename. --Zache (talk) 08:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Zache:  Done NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 09:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. --Zache (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC closure request

Can I get an uninvolved closure of the RfC at File talk:Flag of Afghanistan.svg? Thanks in advance. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 10:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked or not?

This page says "This user is currently blocked ... in 2021 ... expiration time of indefinite" but on the same page you can see edits day before yesterday. Confusing imho. --Palosirkka (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Look at the year of his last edit ... it was 2021. --Túrelio (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Oooooops. Thanks for the quick reply and sorry for the bad noise. Maybe I'll take a nap... --Palosirkka (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Tyallendeen

Is it possible to block revert all edits made by blocked user Tyallendeen from 18:52 on 7 March to his last edit at 19:17 on the same day? He miscategorised a number of images in a category I was cleaning out, and it would be far easier if they were to go back there so I could properly do the job. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Lamberhurst:  Done.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jeff G.:  Thank you. Lamberhurst (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Lamberhurst: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Long-term abuse IPs on Commons

Special:Contributions/186.89.218.201. This is one of several long-term abuse IPs that are particularly active on en.wq. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Naughty IP

Special:Contributions/154.47.111.71 Just vandalized this page. --Palosirkka (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Same as the above IP. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Also Special:Contributions/177.232.82.136. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/189.203.85.1 —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/102.184.62.85 —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/186.88.102.90 —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/95.78.13.52 —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/201.214.11.159 —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/186.91.194.35 —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Strange account

Hello,

As a global renamer, I have noticed a request by a contributor based on frwiki, but do not want to perform it before a sysop checks at his contributions here. I am not fully aware of the blocking policy on Commons, but I find his contributions quite problematic. (I ping Céréales Killer who is also global renamer, mainly for frwiki). Thank you! Litlok (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Litlok: All edits are live. However, judging from the content they are uploading, I suggest that you rejected this rename request. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 15:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Litlok: I concur. All uploads are under discussion. The user is NOTHERE.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

For me is the same stuff. We have to reject this request and block the account. Céréales Killer (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Please delete User:千村千夜ジェネリック

Create by cross-wiki abuse and LTA sock 千村狐免.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 07:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@MCC214:  Done, locked thanks to Hasley!   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 07:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Jeff G., I said delete User:千村千夜ジェネリック. --MCC214#ex umbra in solem 07:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  @MCC214: Sorry, I misunderstood. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/User:千村千夜ジェネリック instead.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 07:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Deletion request for MediaWiki:Grouppage-OTRS-member

Please delete page MediaWiki:Grouppage-OTRS-member and its subpages, they are no longer needed as this usergroup does not exist anymore, Thanks. (I thought they should not appear in the interface at present but not pretty sure, so if I am wrong please let me know) Stang^★ 18:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Hjftgtgggttttttygyy8

Please review this user's uploads - Hjftgtgggttttttygyy8 (talk · contribs). Does not seem like they're here to build Commons. Delete & block? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. --A.Savin 01:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

An odd Mona Lisa

A puzzling page - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mona_Lisa_(copy,_Oslo).JPG
The painting shown is listed as belonging to the Louvre collection, but the file's title and description indicate it is in the National Gallery in Oslo. I checked the Oslo Gallery about 18 months ago and indeed found a copy of the Mona Lisa. It is quite unlike the Wikimedia file, which seems to be a scan from some lurid reproduction. So I posted the following comment:
"Much better original at The National Museum, Oslo, Norway, https://www.nasjonalmuseet.no/en/collection/object/NG.M.00028 Listed as "Artist unknown"; not given to Bernardino Luini (per inscription) nor to Philippe de Champaigne"
The Oslo painting - if it is the same as shown here - is still at the URL I supplied. From memory, I don't think their copyright provisions allowed a copy to be uploaded to Wikimedia (though I could be wrong).
Checking back today, I find my comment was quickly "reverted" (removed). User:Jdx apparently did this, but their profile has the following comment:
"This user has been indefinitely blocked on Wikimedia Commons."
Moreover, clicking on the link for Source/Photographer (http://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=917222) reveals that site is blocked by the Federal Court of Australia for copyright breaches.
I don't know what to do about any of this. Nor where else I might address this issue: IRC chat won't connect for me, & Telegram won't send me a code...(boo-hoo!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nielshutch (talk • contribs) 17:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Having now re-examined the Oslo Mona Lisa in detail (mainly by lightening up the museum's file), I am convinced the image shown in Wikimedia is of the Oslo painting, probably scanned from the book mentioned. Therefore, it is not of some other copy in the Louvre. I have altered the copy accordingly.

Nielshutch (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Council of Europe (blue).svg

Several trigger-happy users independently from each other keep removing Russia from this map due to today's announcements. As per article 7/8 of the CoE statutes, Russia is currently member and likely remains member at least short-term, before the expulsion or withdrawal takes effect. It might be a good idea to protect this file until this happens to prevent a further back and forth over this issue. --Vogone (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

This has become a moot issue following today's resolution to expel Russia with immediate effect. --Vogone (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser approved

Hi, my request for use of AWB was approved but probably someone have forgotten to add my user in Commons:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPageJSON. Some admin can add me? Approved request --ValterVB (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@ValterVB Your request is not approved and is under review - FitIndia ^{Talk ✉} 09:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fitindia: the Bot continuously removes the request so no one can read it --ValterVB (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

UserRightsBot

Please consider blocking User:UserRightsBot. It is performing incorrect actions on Commons:Requests for rights. Its operator has not been active since November and has no email address registered — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Henri Matisse, Woman with a hat

Dear Admins,

I need the painting Henri Matisse: Woman with a hat for a Hungarian article about the Salon d'Automne in Paris. I have found it in the English Wikipedia at the article Woman with a Hat (w:File:Matisse-Woman-with-a-Hat.jpg). I've tried to upload it here but I received the message that it has once been deleted. I don't know what to do in such cases. Can it be uploaded again, what license to use if yes? Or could you please, simply reload it? Thank you for your help Mirabella (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mirabella: Hi, this painting is not yet in the public domain of its source conutry (Hungary I believe), and therefore can be uploaded here on Commons no sooner than Jan 1st 2025. Please see the file's description on enwiki for more information. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 20:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!Mirabella (talk) 07:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Please delete some pages

User:世界は冷たくて嫉妬に満ちています,User talk:世界は冷たくて嫉妬に満ちています,File:Qwsdf.webp and File:Not124.webp,create by cross-wiki abuse and LTA sock.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 07:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 07:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Problematic version on Ukraine-Russia issue

Can you guys restore this stable version of the image?

The edit war took place and the file got protected by User:CptViraj but at least 6 users (Jjfans, Eric Liu, SD hehua, Malikvinogradoff, Fomuta, and me) are against the single editor named Jirka.h23 who successfully edit warred to preserve his problematic version. See the discussion.

Since the issue is ongoing and urgent, I am asking admins to revert back to the stable version of the image supported by nearly all editors except one lone editor. Thanks. 122.170.74.176 10:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Anyone here to fix this urgent issue? 122.170.74.176 12:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Malikvinogradoff and Fomuta 's comments are irrelevant. See also the revision history [12]. SCP-2000 12:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Reverted and user warned. The last editor may be a sock. I am watching the page. Yann (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 Thank you. SD hehua (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Commons sysop in service of the Russian military?

UNRELATED:

If you want to ask ethical questions, go to COM:VP please. Again, we are more than happy to overlook your mistake in attacking a user by *implying* that they are in service of the Russian military. But our patience is running out, A.Savin. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

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

---

Is this *really* ethically okay and in accordance with our goals, that a Commons sysop (Butko) is systematically uploading Ukraine-war related propaganda videos by the Russian War Ministry? Thanks --A.Savin 11:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Please read COM:NOTCENSORED --Butko (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

One does not need to be "in service of ..." to upload images/material that is freely accessible and under a free license. So, please refrain from getting personal. Another question that went through my head already days ago is whether we should tag current (potential) "propaganda material" with a warning/disclaimer about the veracity of the descriptio/material, similar as we have done with wartime-related uploads from the German Bundesarchiv. --Túrelio (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I won't refrain. If someone, especially a sysop, seems to be uploading about nothing else than pro-Russian and pro-separatists stuff, this has to be questioned at the very least. --A.Savin 12:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, these are OK provided that the source is given and that it is clear they show one side only of the war. As mentioned by Túrelio, a disclaimer would be good. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm smart enough to know that the videos are OK in terms of licensing. It's merely about ethical aspects. --A.Savin 12:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

We already have plenty of propaganda material from all sides of the political spectrum. These files are OK as long as they are not claimed to be neutral. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

---

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

I disagree with the premature closure by 4nn1l2. 4nn1l2, if you have problems with my behaviour feel free to report me, but this topic is surely not about my behaviour. And I cannot assume you to be neutral. --A.Savin 13:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

You have attacked a user personally here implying that they are in service of the Russian military. Your other question regarding adding a disclaimer to the files is out of scope for this forum, and can be continued at an appropriate venue such as the COM:VP without mentioning any users at all. I couldn't care less about the Ukraine-Russia war, so rest assured that I'm neutral in this regard. I even may support adding a disclaimer notice to those files myself. Calling my neutrality into question is not the best course of action you can take if you just want to tag those images with a disclaimer. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I also disagree with 4nn1l2's closure. A.Savin's concern is valid, even if we accept these files, and warning to A.Savin above is not warranted. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

So you think it's okay to attack users blatantly accusing them to be in service of an invading army without providing any evidence at all? And this thread should be seen in light of Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_88#Soul_Train where A.Savin blocked a Russian user for no reason!

Anyway, I'm not going to re-open this thread. I still urge you to continue this discussion at the Village Pump just about adding a disclaimer notice to the files without mentioning any users at all. That saves volunteers' time. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

You may have overlooked the question mark in the heading. No comment on your other statements. --A.Savin 17:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I have not. That's why I have used the word "imply" in my closure. Please stop asking accusatory and loaded questions, as these are not genuine questions. These just provide a backdoor for the questioner to avoid responsibility. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Alexander, while I have no comment about 4nn1l2's closure, please remember what I said last time: Do never judge a person's character by looking solely at their actions and even if someone else's perspective is different from you, it doesn't mean that their contributions are illegit. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 13:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you concerned by propaganda from Ukrainian side in same degree? See Category:Media without a license as of 15 March 2022 as example. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Administrators as other users are supposed to respect policies. If the files have no copyright issues, or no other legal issues, and if they are in scope, there is no reason to prevent or limit someone (administrator or not) to upload those files or other files about the topic of their choice. Therefore no problem with Butko here. Regarding the topic of the files I second EugeneZelenko, propaganda may be from every sides of a conflicts. Furthermore propaganda may used by many governments, even in peace times, and propaganda may even sometimes be used by certain press groups. US politic is criticized by a lot of people in the world, and some of those people may consider medias created by US government as biased at better and as propaganda at worst, why should we care about that? People should have the entire freedom (without inerference from our side) to judge what they see. Who should decid what is potentialy propaganda or not? us? that is not very neutral. To put a disclaimer on such files is a kind of abandonment of neutrality, or it should be done not only for Russia but on every media created by a country involved in a conflict. So that we do not distinguish/favor beligerents from different conflicts, and of course that we do that for all conflicts. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Promotional username

User:Biosci (Thailand) a VSNi group (blatant advertisement for a company per COM:IU, with matching names on Facebook, LinkedIn, and and vsni.co.uk). HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 19:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Warned for copyvios and advertising, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

More promotional usernames

The following usernames appear predominately or exclusively promotional, and are thus inappropriate per COM:IU:

• User:Grossmann Group <-- verified account (see de:Benutzer:Grossmann Group)  Keep
• User:Reborn dance group <-- no uploads; blocked on :en
• User:Morning walk group badlapur <-- has only 2 uploads from 2015
• User:Avno Group <-- no uploads since account-opening 3 years ago
• User:World Research Group <-- no uploads; merely promotional userpage-entry
• User:Ravindra Bharathi Educational Group <-- no uploads; merely promotional userpage-entry
• User:Swanson Investment Group <-- no uploads; blocked on :en
• User:LMG Group, LLC <-- no uploads
• User:Jauriya Group <-- 1 upload (promotional)
• User:Empayar Cili Sufi Group <-- no uploads
• User:Sanskar Educational Group Ghaziabad <-- no uploads; blocked on :en
• User:PT. Media Wantara Group <-- no uploads; blocked on :id
• User:ArtistGroupMusic <-- 1 upload
• User:Yamuna Group of Institutes <-- no uploads; blocked on :en
• User:Cashycart Online Shopping Store <-- no uploads; blocked on :en
• User:Usamasarwarpk <-- no uploads
• User:Smooth Generation <-- no uploads; blocked on :en
• User:StudentAstronomyGroupUoC <-- student-project; only possible problem WRT copyright for their uploads.  Keep --Túrelio (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• User:Obusgroup <-- 2 uploads (somewhat promotional)
• User:HFD SoCal <-- no uploads; blocked on :en
• User:Synthreplicants <-- 1 upload (somewhat promotional)
• User:ThinkNorthUK <-- no uploads

HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 20:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 Comment I deleted some userpages, and warned the users. IMO that's sufficient if no other edit. Yann (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

They will be counted as "promotional username" only when they have added any promotional content. Otherwise they are counted as "name of an organization", which is allowed on Commons if verified. For the list above, I can see only 2-3 in promotional usename category but they have no recent edits, so IMHO I also don't think that blocks are required. -- CptViraj (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

YouTubeReview failure

Hello, yesterday I received a review request on my talk page. But, today when I tried to review the file, the script or template failed I'm not sure which one. Did anyone else faced same issue, or it's just me. Just to test, I tried to review one of my recent uploaded YouTube file check here. Is there any problem with the LR script?. Please guide me. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 07:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure

Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure has a problem, the text in English says "Please use this template only if you have proof that the author never claimed authorship or their authorship never became public in any other way." Then again under Germany it reads: "Reasonable evidence must be presented that the author's name (e.g., the original photographer, portrait painter) was not published with a claim of copyright" it is redundant to the claim already made in the overall text of the template. It was added before the template was locked. The section on German law should only contain information that differs from EU law, such as the clawback clause, that allows copyright to be restored if the creator of an anonymous work becomes known. Having the same information in twice and worded slightly differently is causing confusion. --RAN (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

You cannot have proof that a claim never was presented. There is no central register for those claims. Reasonable evidence should be enough, not only for Germany. –LPfi (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit war in File:Lugansk People's Republic in Ukraine (de-facto) (semi-secession).svg

For about a month now, an edit war is going on over the map File:Lugansk People's Republic in Ukraine (de-facto) (semi-secession).svg. From its creation in June 2016, it was unchanged until 25 February 2022, and it is widely used in Wikipedia language versions to depict the controlled territory of "Luhansk People's Republic" in Ukraine prior to the Russian invasion, such as in en:Luhansk People's Republic with exactly that caption. There are now people who think that it should become an ever-updated map, and the area of the controlled territory gets changed and reverted back to the old version a lot. I already protected the file for a day and said that changes should be discussed, but the edit war is going on. In its current state (as of 11:02, 20 March 2022‎), the map has again expanded the territory and thus is no longer fitting its Wikipedia description. I think, as it's such an old file and widely in use, it should be kept in the historical state and not retroactively be declared {{Current}}, so I removed that template which was added in the meantime to justify changing the map. As discussed here, for continuous updating, a new map file should be used, I think. But I don't want to become part of the edit war, so I'm asking here for another admin to take appropriate measures. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: Right now, the caption in English Wikipedia was changed from Controlled territory of Luhansk People's Republic in Ukraine prior to Russian invasion to Controlled territory of Luhansk People's Republic in Ukraine. I'm not going to get involved there, I'm actually not very keen on getting into this politically very charged area, so this is just a pointer. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to add time stamp/period into file name and have multiple files that will reflect territorial changes. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Protected again. Yann (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

User with many sockpuppets and copyrighted pictures

There is a user with many sockpuppet who has many copyrighted pictures on commons. An admin should delete all of them because he claims it is his "own work" but they should be speedy deleted. The sockpuppets are here.[[13]] and [[14]] Shadow4dark (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing renaming requests for television station logos – another sockpuppet?

Dear admins,

as you may know we have some users which are obsessed by the wish to rename files with logos of television stations from South America. You can see this for example in the history of this file. In March 2020, User:Luiscamilo1989 (which has in between been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Luis camilo álvarez vega) demanded again and again to rename this file; he has cost us file movers time and nerves. In January 2021, probably the same user returned as User:AngelChavezMartinez (which has in between been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Luis camilo álvarez vega, too) and continued this game.

Now since January 2022 we have got User:Casthis who is again obsessed by the wish to rename logos of television stations from South America; and again the reasons for the renaming requests are very questionable. Casthis does the same on more TV logos; this costs us file movers time and nerves. And indeed when we take a look at Casthis’ contributions, this user seems to be interested only in TV logos. I do not know how to proof this (I am just a poor file mover) but maybe Castis is another incarnation of User:Luis camilo álvarez vega?

Anyway, could please somebody with more experience, technical skills and authority take a look at Castis’ file renaming requests and decide how we should handle them? Thank you very much! --Aristeas (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Update: It continues – a IP has reverted my revert. I will not revert the revert of the revert – edit wars are bad. But I also don’t know what to do now with this rename request (and the similar rename requests). Maybe this request is OK and we could process it; but I still have the feeling that something is wrong about so many rename requests for TV logos … Best, --Aristeas (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Aristeas: I've no idea about the socks, but I've applied my usual narrow approach to renaming criterion 4 and declined a bunch of requests. --bjh21 (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@bjh21: Thank you very much! --Aristeas (talk) 10:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aram Khachaturian mural in Yerevan.jpg

Can an admin close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aram Khachaturian mural in Yerevan.jpg? I nominated the file for deletion because I thought the mural in question was located in Russia which doesn't grant FOP to artwork; however, the mural is actually located in Armenia which does grant FOP to artwork. Now, that my mistake has been pointed out, I've withdrawn my nomination of the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Yann. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not Yann but fine, no problem. Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

My apologies for that Ymblanter. I don't know why I mixed you and Yann up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg

At the moment, the map does not absolutely correspond to the declared sources ([15] — clearly demonstrates the difference). Edits are being made, including on the basis of statements by the Russian side. Discussion is effectively ignored by editors--Artemis Dread (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

 Comment This map is currently not protected. Anyone can upload an update. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

2001:8A0:7660:F900:E8DE:31B3:2D85:3D2D

Vandalism. SummerKrut (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done: IP blocked and pages semi-protected. --Túrelio (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Ahamadch's SVG Logos

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

Hi! A new user uploaded the logos of various software products as "own work" and without meaningful descriptions. Could you please educate or warn or delete or whatever is appropriate? Thanks! TilmannR (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. All files were unused and had description "SAMPLE", so I mass deleted them as test files. Taivo (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Removing a vandalic edition

Please request the deletion and hide a message on my talk page that contains an offensive insult in spanish [16]. Thank you--P Cesar Maldonado | Tapuykuna? Quellqayǃ 16:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Done DMacks (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Merging history

Due to this very strange edit, Category:! has lost its history, while Category:Israel Wood Powell has now a history that’s mostly incomprehensible for the casual observer. Can an admin do the needed switcheroo here, and maybe warn @MrMemer223: that, when needing a new cat, sequestering an existent redirect into the new name is not the best way to go. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 06:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. --Achim55 (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Please close

... this DR, it becomes annoying. Thanks. --Achim55 (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done - FitIndia ^{Talk ✉} 16:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Delete request

Hi, is there anyone could help to delete translate page Commons:Requests_for_translation/en/en? I thought I did some wrong operation when trying to mark it for translation: I have moved Commons:Requests_for_translation to Commons:Requests_for_translation/en, which is actually not needed; when I tried to revert this move action, I got an error message said "A page already exists at Commons:Requests for translation/en, or the page name you have chosen is not valid". I believe this is caused by the existence of Commons:Requests_for_translation/en/en, so I wish a sysop could delete this page. Thanks! Stang^★ 14:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I moved the page and its subpages back to the original name Commons:Requests for translation via a detour. I hope it works again as intended. De728631 (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Helpful enough, thanks a lot! Stang^★ 15:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Please delete User:東京都は存在する意味がない and User:七海呐呐咪

Create by cross-wiki abuse and LTA sock,also, please block 七海呐呐咪.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Both accounts have been blocked indefinitely. De728631 (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Uploads by SYloveswater

All the uploads by this user basically contain a confession of copyright violation in their description (" Organization's website" mentioned as source). In addition, the account is banned on enwiki for being a sock.

Perhaps it'd be best to just remove all their uploads. I can't be asked to mark the files for deletion individually. --Veikk0.ma (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Tagged. Yann (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Abuse filter changes for cross-wiki uploads

A week ago at Commons talk:Abuse filter#Proposed change of cross-wiki upload edit summaries (third attempt), I asked for a change to some abuse filters to match a proposed change to the configuration of the Cross-wiki media upload tool. Is there any chance someone could look at the request before it vanishes into the archives? I'm sorry if I asked for it in the wrong place. --bjh21 (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Nishadlalit4

Nishadlalit4 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

This new user uploaded many photos without META. It is doubtful that is his own work. Could an administrator warn him and take a look at the possible copyvio? Pierre cb (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Warned, all obvious copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

dear sir im written approval and right for my all image . this all my own work Nishadlalit4 (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nishadlalit4: Please identify what part of your workflow is preventing us from receiving metadata for your uploaded own photos, and make sure such photos have metadata in the future. For photos by other photographer(s), please have them license them on their official websites or social media or send the photos and permissions via VRT with carbon copies to you.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Messages with offensive tones

The user Hilaya45 uses his own discussion page to post offensive messages or messages with a denigrating tone. The reason for these messages is because he believes that I delete his images when they are not my attributions as a user. Please hide these edits or remove them [17], [18], [19]. Thanks!--P Cesar Maldonado | Tapuykuna? Quellqayǃ 03:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked Hilaya for a week. Taivo (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

New version for Wikipedia-logo-v2-zh-hans.svg

As a part of phab:T276694, File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-zh-hans.svg should be overrided with File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-zh-hans-expected.svg.

Pervious consensus can be found at [20].--Steven Sun (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

cc @4nn1l2: SCP-2000 14:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Steven Sun (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

User:PopperPeachesCoconut2022 requested to all pictures and global lock

Violation of copyright owners to be able to upload. Wrugtrab (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Billinghurst deleted all uploads and blocked the user indefinitely. I closed one DR. Taivo (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The edit war on the File talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg and user blockings

Hi. I saw the edit war on the talk page and the 1 week of block you made to the @Gaeilge181, @Argut and @Eoiuaa. These 3 users are very active on the map. Not only did they edit the controversial situations of the front line and settlements, but also they provided many helpful changes, like those names of settlements, geographic locations and other icon fixes. So I think the duration of 1 week might be too long for them, which would potentially damage the enthusiasm and motivation of them. I think these users did not breach the three-revert rule policy and they did follow the rules of Dispute resolution and discussed the issue on the talk page.

But there is another user @Iconicos consistently uses aggressive words on the talk page, suggesting the above users were "web brigades", "trolls" and "cyberwarriors", which I think could be detrimental to the discussion on the topic. I am not sure whether the wording of @Iconicos might be more of a hindrance than a help, but this behaviour is against personal attacks and would also be blocked as per Blocking policy#Protection. Besides @Iconicos is one of only two users did the three-revert rule within 24 hours. The other one is the creator of the map @Viewsridge. Wo.luren (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

This is copied from my talk page. I would like other opinions about how to deal with this case. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems no one pay attention to this case. Wo.luren (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. All three users were correctly blocked. Taivo (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone please give the guidance which rule of the blocking policy supports the block of these users? We are in a community full of conflict of interest. This community encourages full discussions, and the these users did participated in the discussion. So I think we could at least assume good faith of them. But I did not see any preliminary education and warnings before the block been made. Furthermore, can anyone please explain why @Iconicos is not blocked considering his words breaching the No personal attacks policy and his three-revert within 24 hours even before the discussion reached a consensus? I did not see this user showing any respect or civility to other editor of opposing viewpoint, but only showing his arrogance from his words. I do not think this would be helpful for the discussion, but could instead insult other users or even provoke anger. The community are trying to maintain a neutral point of view but not to bias towards certain side. Based on this, I am not sure whether the treatment of these 4 users were followed the same standard and were consistent with the admin's policy of Dealing with disputes. I am not saying @Iconicos should be blocked. This user indeed offers helpful information (though with bias), but it is not desirable to see the user behaves as an ultimate admin, winning the battle over every opposite voice. What I am thinking is those 4 users should be treated under the same standard. For example, just let them continue the discussion cycle on the talk page so long as the page is protected. After all, we are not talking about a specific editing or any details they made to the map/page, but maintaining the principle and standard in which the community have been persisted. Wo.luren (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wo.luren: English Wikipedia policies do not apply here. Commons has its own set of policies, which may be similar to English WP, or may not. Yann (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I have read Commons:Blocking policy which is a short version of English WP. And the policy of Commons:Talk page guidelines#Disputes is referred to its English counterpart. May I know if there was anything inaccurate in my statement, or anything inconsistent with the Commons policy? Wo.luren (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The week-long block is almost finished, but there is no admin can explain the reason behind the blocking. It is not that difficult to explain it if the blocks were correct. But everyone was reluctant to do it. Maybe busy or be afraid. But someone might owe the users apologies if the blocks were incorrect.Wo.luren (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

user:GibbonConnection

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

There is a newly created account that looks suspiciously and acts strangely.

First, it's definitely not a new user. (Brand new users seldom start with Commons instead of Wikipedia, and it's almost impossible that a genuine new user starts with forums and "patrolling" instead of uploads.)

Second, he already has done a lot of mess with my old edits and uploads. One page has been recently protected because of this (thanks to Achim55). My other concerns are detailed on his user talk page, but he doesn't seem to hear, he does something else instead.

Let me guess that a sockmaster is SwissArmyGuy who is currently blocked in enwiki by IP range of 49.150.96.0/19 for harassment of users including me. What makes me think so is an upload history of File:Moskvorecky bridge.JPG where he was too quick to reinstate the edit of the LTA, while theoretically his brand new account wouldn't have this page in a watchlist. Note also the similarity between the upload summaries of this one and e.g. that: "keep it original", etc. And a key feature of SwissArmyGuy: poor understanding of plain English, both policies and talk pages. — Mike Novikoff 01:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

FYI, this user has intended to harass me while editing on Commons. Previously, this user is blocked twice on Russian Wikipedia for trolling users and disclosure of personal data, and on Wikidata for intimidation and harassment. GibbonConnection (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Novikoff:  Done, blocked for 3 days thanks to Yann!   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! And while we are at it, I'd also ask to delete some files recently created by the blocked user: [1], [2], [3], [4] – they are now duplicates of the files they were copied from (I believe it's CSD F8). — Mike Novikoff 22:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Deleted. -- CptViraj (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@CptViraj: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Creation of the openrefine-3.7 tag

Dear admins, could you please create an "openrefine-3.7" tag, just like the current "openrefine-3.6" tag? It will be applied manually when making edits (and is therefore unrelated to OAuth or abuse filters). Thank you very much! − Pintoch (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. -- CptViraj (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Closing DRs with new rationales

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Couverture_midrash_laic_avril_2021.jpg was a discussion about the copyright status of a work, that was closed for being out of scope. Stuff like this is always problematic; was the work in scope? I don't know, and this is an example, not a UDR, but the uploader or other users never got a chance to defend the work. Images are frequently in scope that might not be at first glance. I'm asking that if an admin has a reason to delete a file that's not speedy worthy and not discussed in the DR, that they add it to the discussion and let another admin close it, or at least it stay open for a couple days for responses.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

If a file is nominated for regular deletion, then the closing admin must consider every aspect of the file, those mentioned in the DR and those not mentioned as well. Sometimes the nominated files have multiple problems. It is not unusual for admin to delete the nominated file on reasons not mentioned in the DR. Discussion is sometimes bad option, because usually nobody will participate in it. If in doubt, then, of course, it is better to discuss and not close the DR. But this case was open more than half of year and somebody must decide on matters, where everybody is in doubt. I do not know, why this particular file is out of scope. You must ask that from deleting admin. Probably he will give you a satisfying answer. If not, then you can create an UDR. Taivo (talk) 10:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

If nobody during the half-a-year discussion, including none of the four who commented, raised the issue on scope, it seems the file wasn't at least obviously out of scope. Closing as delete with a new rationale is equivalent to speedy, unless people should be arguing about every thinkable deletion rationale for every single deletion request, which is a waste of time. Unless the decisive argument for deletion has been brought up in time or there is a speedy-worthy issue, leave the request open or close as keep. The latter does not add to the backlog. –LPfi (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Difficulty to rename a file

Hello. The file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leaning_(Alkamenes)_Aphrodite_(Daphni_type;_unveiled_version)_-_Mus%C3%A9e_du_Louvre_Ma_414.jpg was renamed but it's a mistake. I tried to revert to the previous name "Leaning Aphrodite Louvre Ma420.jpg" but a notification claims that there is an issue. Could someone help for the renaming? Best regards --Shonagon (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The previous rename left a redirect. It seems the tool doesn't recognise the situation, but anyone who could rename he file should be able to do the rename regardless of the redirect (it has no history and points to the right file). –LPfi (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

 Moved. I'm not aware of any Lua modules or functions that can check pages' history and therefore can't fix Template:Rename/layout for the time being. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 11:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Closing VRT request

Hello! Could you please close this deletion request? In ticket:2022012810003606, a person is kindly following up on the matter. I would be thankful if you can close it, so I can do the same with the ticket. Thanks, Bencemac (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. I closed the DR, deleted the photo as out of scope and blocked the uploader indefinitely, because she is dead. Taivo (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Bencemac (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Editing interface pages

Nearly a month ago, I posted this message about CheckUsers. The community seems to not to care about it. It failed to gain the community's attention. So, I am taking it here. Now, will you please create the pages mentioned at the VPP message including MediaWiki:Checkuser with CheckUser as it's content. Thanks, Hulged (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Hulged: Thank you for posting it. As it's a default interface message comes with mw:Extension:CheckUser, I suggest you to file a ticket on Phabricator. Let the developers' fix it from their side and that would impact on all MediaWiki sites (Not just Commons). Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat ^{[ contribs | talk ]} 14:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Overriding an interface message locally require local consensus while a Phabricator task require a much broader consensus since it affects all wikis using default message from MediaWiki. That being said, I think Hulged's proposal is reasonable in term of scope. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 14:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done per consensus at the VPP: Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2022/03#Proposal to edit interface pages. If everybody has been silent, then there is an implicit consensus. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Why was an image deleted?

I got a message saying an image had been deleted.

Editor's summary: Bot: Removing [[c:File:Money box from New Zealand.jpg]] , deleted by Túrelio (Copyright violation: Uploader cites a CC-BY-NC-ND license, and the site's terms of services says "all rights reserved": www.tepapa.govt.nz/about/collections/all-te-papa-websites/copyright-and-terms-use).

The specific image has the rights licence by-nc-nd/4.0 and a big button saying DOWNLOAD. https://collections.tepapa.govt.nz/object/60278

And this page: https://mediasales.tepapa.govt.nz/cart/object/60278 states: Te Papa has thousands of high-resolution images available for download, free of charge, with reuse subject to copyright status. Can someone explain why the file cannot be used? Thanks. Wainuiomartian (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wainuiomartian: It's simply the "NC" of the licence that's the problem here, the fact that the copyright holder only permits "non-commercial use". Commons licencing policy requires that commercial use also be permitted. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Minor point, but the "ND" is also a no-no here. Anything uploaded to Commons must also allow derivative works. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wainuiomartian, Lord Belbury, and Adeletron 3030: For the reasons behind those restrictions, please see Commons:Licensing/Justifications.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 22:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Wainuiomartian (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Fossils of the Waukesha biota.jpg

Would an administrator mind taking a look at File:Fossils of the Waukesha biota.jpg? It has been tagged with {{Uwlsubst}} since it was uploaded in December 2021, but basically had no source information until earlier today when the uploader added this JSTOR paper as the source. Unfortunately, that seems to prove (even if it was done unintentionally) that the file isn't released under a license that Commons accepts. Perhaps the image could be tagged with {{Copyvio}} or maybe DR'd, but I thought an admin might be able to explain to the uploader what the problem is and perhaps a way (if there is any) the file could possibly be kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. License review failed and I will delete the file. Taivo (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at this Taivo. Would you mind checking File:A comparison of Opabinia and Utaurora.jpg, File:A map showing the fossil finds of Diegoaelurus and other ocyaenid genera in North America.png, File:Holotype of Diegoaelurus vanvalkenburghae.png and File:Radiograph of the left dentary of Diegoaelurus vanvalkenburghae (SDSNH 38343).png too? They seem to have the same type of issue. The source website provided for the second, third and fourth files seems to be licensed OK if you scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page, but the paper where the images actually came from might be individually protected according to the "Author and article information" for the paper itself. The same user has also uploaded quite a lot of other photos of fossils which also might need to be assessed. Quite a few deletion notifications can be found posted on their user talk page and those file and all those files were deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Extra revision-hiding burden from change of cross-wiki upload comments

Recently, as a result of a proposal I initiated at COM:VPP, a sysadmin changed the upload comment for files uploaded through the cross-wiki media upload tool from Cross-wiki upload from $SITE to Uploaded while editing "$PAGENAME" on $SITE. Jdforrester (WMF) has suggested that this may place an unacceptable burden on the Commons admins because of the inclusion of the name of the page that the uploader was editing when they uploaded the file. Specifically, if the name of the page is sufficiently objectionable, it might be necessary to hide the upload comment on Commons. It might be helpful if admins who are familiar with dealing with objectionable upload comments could give their opinion on whether this will be a problem, and whether it might be better not to mention the source page in the upload comment. --bjh21 (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Is the problem having the name of a real article on an objectionable subject, such as "uploaded while editing Pornography", in the upload comment? This might happen e.g. uploading an image on a politician who has debated the subject. I assume images created while editing a vandalism-only article are seldom worth keeping, so that is a lesser problem. One concern was that this would introduce a path for unnoticed vandalism, but for that, upload comments can be hand-crafted anyway. And because objectionable upload comments are possible through many paths, the change doesn't really create a new problem. Is there some reason to think the volume will rise significantly? –LPfi (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

License review help

Hello. Can any admin or license reviewer check the files at Category:Mark Wahlberg in 2018? I just tagged them with {{LicenseReview}}. Looking at the Vimeo sources, the CC license seems valid. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@JWilz12345:  Done I tried to fix the file description. Thanks.--C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 03:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Ipboptions#Longer durations

FYI. -- CptViraj (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Closing deletion request with consensus

The deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sir-john-wolstenholme.jpg has consensus after discussion since VRT permission was received. The only argument in favour of deletion (copyright issue) was resolved by that VRT ticket. Can an interested admin close the deletion request? Thanks. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Taivo (talk) 07:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

VRT copyvio request

Hello everyone! I would kindly ask an administrator to close this DR if it is possible. We received a VRT complain about the file and that is why the DR was started. The other file was deleted as copyvio. Thanks, Bencemac (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Bencemac (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bencemac (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Précision de localisation Category:Immeuble, rue d'Auvergne, Nevers

La base Mérimée et ceux qui la copient (Monumentum, museedupatrimoine.fr) indiquent cette adresse à tort La tourelle est située à l'angle de la rue de la Cathédrale (n°18) et de la rue Albert Morlon (n°2) et en face de la rue de la Parcheminerie. La rue d'Auvergne a été renommée en remerciement à Louis-Albert Morlon qui a légué une partie de sa bibliothèque à la bibliothèque de Nevers. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.43.103.187 (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

dummy comment to enable bot archiving 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

"Publicly available" vs. "out of copyright" + talk page shenanigans

I think a user might need a clarification here about how the title elements are not equivalent. And there's probably a COMMONS:F1 speedy there too. Asking for the opinion of people more experienced here than me. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Now the same user has been attempting to hide my posts and even edit them, which is just rude. RandomCanadian (talk) 04:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

 Comment I added a warning, but you saying that a person is an idiot is not nice either. Also you should inform a user if you post a message about them here. I did it for you this time. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

On en.wikipedia.org, User:RandomCanadian has unfortunately acquired a reputation for aggressive and verbose interventions that are disproportionate and attention-seeking. As my Commons record over the years shows, I have the editing patterns of an academic (a former fellow of a Cambridge College) and have been editing high quality content for ages, including artworks, such as "presentation miniatures" or paintings and drawing by the old masters.

In this particular context, I've added content for Category:BWV 105 – Cantata "Herr, gehe nicht ins Gericht mit deinem Knecht" (for hih-res manuscript images used in many foreign language wikipedias), for Category:BWV 39 – Cantata "Brich dem Hungrigen dein Brot" and now for Category:BWV 56 - Cantata "Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen" (another cantata where an autograph manuscript survives, a rare occurrence). BWV 56 is being prepared to be upgraded to a featured article and I have been chosen as a co-sponsor by User:Gerda Arendt. It is possible that RandomCanadian has some resentment about that, hence the way, out of the blue, he has framed this report. On en:WP:ANI he has made similar reports (I have watched from afar): these frivolous reports were soon shut down, because disproportionate and attention-seeking—"crying wolf".

In that meritless case, RandomCanadian was warned by administrators en:User:Jayron32, User:Deb and others about these antics. That advice was ignored. Yesterday, as User:RandomCanadian disrupted an article en:La Marseillaise, he was advised by Deb to "drop the stick" and cease making tit-for-tat attacks on others (me in this particular case).

The preparation of Category:BWV 56 - Cantata "Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen" is complex with many elements. In particular I spent some days preparing an external link for a YouTube video featuring Commons images by Caspar David Friedrich, some newly uploaded by me. On 30 March I had tentatively considered producing an audio recording from a live broadcast by Ton Koopman and his ensemble, but reading the small print of the label, saw quite quickly that no re-use of it was permitted. I had also checked carefully recordings made by a now defunct group, Orchestra of St Cecilia, which in now archived publicly at Dublin Public Library: at that stage, as indicated in the summary, I had researched the circumstances of the archiving and their free availability in that library. I have not yet contacted the webmaster (Aryeh Oron) or a Dublin librarian about this archive material. It's always possible to add the file back here or on em.wiki, with input from experts like Allison or BrownHairedGirl. The mp3 files are similar to Musopen recordings first appearing in MP3 files on https://www.baroquemusic.org/bmlcatalogue.html (many of which are now on Commons). Although the performers are first rank, the recordings are of lower quality because they are live church performances with audience and probably have too many defects to have been sold commercially. Locally, the performing group was much appreciated; the Irish soloist Nigel Williams died in tragic circumstances at the age of 48 in 2011.

RandomCanadian report here has not been made in good faith: he stalked me on Commons, in a for tit-for-tat as described by User:Deb. Aware that on en.wiki and here he had a penchant tit-for-tat procedures, several hours ago in anticipation I had made a private report to a trusted admin on en.wiki. The use of the words "shenanigans" and "idiot" is unsurprising: this choice of words is immature.

For some reason, on Commons and in en:Talk:La Marseillaise, RandomCanadian has repeatedly made references to "God Save the Queen". I have no idea why, but it seems immature. I know the editors who have handled those files (not me). For British Ceremonial Music, I have uploaded two audio files on 29 December 2021 for en:United Kingdom; my wikifriend Graham87 kindly changed the format from ogg to oga. RandomCanadian interjections on "God Save the Queen" are disruptive: they are immature, attention-seeking and waste other people's time. Mathsci (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I noticed an obvious copyright problem with files on a Wikipedia page. That the files were uploaded by you I only noticed after nominating the files (although I probably should have guessed, since they weren't there before). Copyright problems are a serious issue. The rest of your comment is bad-faith and off-topic blustering and I have no reason nor duty to respond to it. has unfortunately acquired a reputation on en.wikipedia.org for aggressive and verbose interventions is just false (and pretty ironic, given the length of your contributions, both here and at the deletion discussion).

The use of the words "shenanigans" and "idiot" is unsurprising: this choice of words is immature. Nowhere did I use the word "idiot", nor would I. Being disruptive and rude (and ignoring arguments that something being publicly available does not make it out of copyright) is an entirely different issue. Again, false.

Concerns about stalking also seem rather misplaced, as Mathsci's been doing the exact same thing they're complaining about with my edits on Wiki ([21]; [22]): and they've done it enough times that I'm quite assured it's not mere coincidence. You can't play two tunes on the same fiddle. As, for example, with your insinuation that I have no clue and that I should "EXPERIMENT IN A SANDBOX"... RandomCanadian (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Re. "commercial value" After the final concert, a six-disc box set was produced, consisting of some of the finest performances from each of the ten years. ([23]). And even if that were not the case, simply because something has little to no commercial value does not make it copyright free. I've composed/improvised/recorded a few things in my life whose commercial value is nigh-negligible: I still have copyright over them. Lack of commercial value is an argument for fair use, but Commons does not host fair use works. RandomCanadian (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• The comments about "God Save the Queen" were irrelevant, here and on en.wiki. The timing of the halted editing of en:La Mareillaise and the mentions of BWV 56 on that talk page show unequivocably that RandomCanadian followed me here. It is in line with what Deb described on en.wiki. There don't seem to be clear copyright violations no serious issues. For all kinds of files, I often upload files onto en.wiki and they are transferred by Fastily, OrgeBot and Magnus Manske to Commons. That could easily happen here. I haven't yet had time to contact Aryeh Oron, Dublin librarians, or wikimedia experts like Allison or BrownHairedGirl. The wikilink of Jayron32 below is accurate (apologies for pings). Mathsci (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  Wait. Me mentioning another national anthem (like GStheQ, or O Canada), is "irrelevant", but you mentioning a cantata by Bach (which you now claim, that, despite you linking that page in the discussion - nevermind I got to it from another page altogether - would be me "stalking" you), is somewhat not? Not only are you still trying to "prove" something by repeatedly asserting it and ignoring any evidence to the contrary, your argument isn't even making sense. RandomCanadian (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• This is the fourth time in as many days that I have been pinged in regards to various conflicts with RandomCanadian across multiple wikis. I ignored the other pings, because I have already stated that I have no further interest in continuing my involvement in these matters. Please stop dragging me back in. If there is some action I have taken that you need clarification or I need to answer for, fine, but please stop pinging me in regards to these kinds of discussions around RandomCanadian. I have nothing further to add to the matter. --Jayron32 (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

We are coming to a point here where I feel that both of the involved contributors are coming close to a block for disruptive editing. As per Jayron32's comments, please just put a sock in it. Deb (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks to Deb for her suggestion here and on [[User:Talk Deb]]. I will gladly take her advice. Mathsci (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

On the DR: COM:VPC is a better venue for seeking opinions/explanations about copyright/licensing issues. It looks like RandomCanadian is correct on the merits, as far as I can tell. Commons has quite strict requirements for licensing/documentation that don't look to be satisfied in that particular case. But that doesn't need to be hashed out here. On the rest: It looks like there's some bad blood between RC and Mathsci, largely carried over from enwp. I don't see the relevance of some of the mentions of past behavior. The allegations which are relevant here (e.g. claims about stalking) would need to be better substantiated with diffs, though. The issue of collapsing/editing someone else's message has already been addressed by Yann. The longer this stays open, the worse things will likely get, so absent other diffs it's probably best to just let the DR play out IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  21:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Aryeh Oron, the webmaster for bach-cantatas.org, has very kindly replied to my request for info. The response was very rapid! He has written that the mp3 files of the Orchestra of St Cecilia (OSC) Bach recordings were presented to bach-cantatas.org (BCW) by permission of Lindsay Armstrong, the retired artistic director. He has said that I would have to get his permission to present the mp3 files on this website, so either en.wikipedia.org (restricted) or commons.wikimedia.org. Aryeh has privately given me the new gmail address for Lindsay Armstrong. There is a vimeo video on Dublin City Public Library marking the completion of the whole cycle of Bach cantatas in 2010: Lindsay Anderson delivers a fascinating speech in St Ann's Church, where the cantatas were performed. There is also now a plaque on the Church commemorating OSC and the Bach cantata project. Mathsci (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mathsci: Just FYI, there is practically no middle ground between (a) freely licensed, and can be uploaded to Commons; and (b) meets Wikipedia's non-free content criteria and can be uploaded to Wikipedia. For (b) there is no permission required, but it does have to meet NFCC because Wikipedia wants to be free content/reusable. So in either case, permission simply to host on Commons or to host on Wikipedia isn't going to be sufficient. You'll need documentation of licensing rather than simply permission. I'd recommend using the release generator, since the files are already up on Commons. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, this has already been discussed in detail with admin Yann on his user talk page three days ago. For further messages, please use my user talk page on Commons, not here. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Unable to edit structured data of split-off image

Hi. Are any administrators able to help with the issue detailed at Commons:History merging and splitting/Requests/Archive 5#File:Derby_Midland_Station_Departures_Board.jpg_→_File:Derby_Midland_Station_Departures_Board_2.jpg? My name (and upload date) are in the structured data of an image I did not make. Attempting to edit the data leads to an error. – Green Tentacle (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems that they share the same structured data. Any attempts to change from one file will lead to changes in both (edits will be recorded at the first one). I guess we can re-merge, and then re-upload with appropriate attribution? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 21:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi. It's interesting you say that editing either image affects both. I had to revert some changes to the original file, which I thought I'd made on the second file. Turns out I was right all along and I was editing the second file. I guess this is a bug in the Wikimedia software, then.

There's certainly a lot of administrator work because another user overwrote my image.

Please do whatever you need to do to fix this, please. Perhaps acknowledge that a re-upload had to happen because of the bug?

Thank you. – Green Tentacle (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)