Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 59

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Can someone delete my userpage and creation protect it? (the translation is really nasty). I prefer having the userpage copied from meta.wikipedia.org. Thank you. MechQuester (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Protected so that other users (lta) can't create it. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Msi gaming logo.png of the same uploader has been deleted so I suspect that "gaming" versions of this file probably should be hidden. --jdx ^Re: 20:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done History cleaned, file protected, overwriter blocked. INeverCry 01:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi admins; this is just to let you know that I have just started the traditional bi-annual admin inactivity run for August-September 2016.

As is the custom, all administrators listed in the table on that page have been notified on their talk pages and via e-mail by yours truly; those listed here have had their adminship removed on Meta by steward MarcoAurelio a short while ago as a result of their prolonged inactivity. Please join me in thanking @Blurpeace, @Esby @Logan, @LtPowers, @Krzysiu and @Killiondude for their excellent service to our community over so many years as administrators here. odder (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Some of my uploaded files, such as File:ROC Railway Flag (1919).svg, File:ROCA Deputy Commander-in-Chief's Flag.svg, and File:Seal of Tainan City (2014-).svg are being nominated to speed delete by 306szm, a likely new user in Wiki Common. After I left request in his talk to stop his wrong nomination, he stopped temporarily now.

Please help to remove all wrong speed delete nomination from 306szm. Thanks a lot.--Akira123 (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 05:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi!

I'm sad for the attitude... No one responds. Why this indifference?!

On 4 July 2016 I have been asked this question here and User talk:Leoboudv#Question by Fauvirt, Commons talk:License review#On the_picture, not taked by license reviews and User talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive14#Please (Fauvirt).... the According to the auditors (License reviewers) they are not responsible for review Licences which are clearly doesn't well-licensed ...

(for example the pictures in the Category:Tibor Végh and an photo, what is a cutting from one of them, are all from Tibor Véghs Picasa-album, so the license reviewer verifed, the licence cc-by-sa, where the the indicated author Tibor Végh is despite the fact that on the images are Tibor Végh so he can't be the autor. Reviewer User:Leoboudv told me to my question (Are you sure that you "confirmed that it was available on Picasa Web Albums under the above license on that date" by these pictures? Because the album have the name: "Kézfogásaim", what means "My handshakes"... I am in correspondence with Tibor Végh, so I am sure that he is not the author of these images...) "The picasa account owner is Tibor Végh and the license is 'cc by 3.0 generic.' It still is and unless Tibor stole the images from another person's account, it seems that likely to assumne that the images are Tibor's own work. The picasa review bot passed this image and it is a robot, not a human being so the license is confirmed as 'cc by 3.0 generic'. PS: Tibor Vegh has 278 images on Wikimedia Commons. So, he seems to be a legitimate photographer. Pictogram voting comment.svg Megjegyzés: If you want to ask an Admin about Tibor's images you can post a message here as I am not an Admin. I just review licenses." Is that so ok? According to the uploader this confirms him and I will not to do anything (deletion request) with those...)

Fauvirt (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

So... bad licenses confirmed by license reviews are so insignificant on Commons?!.. Fauvirt (talk) 09:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fauvirt: Everyone here is a volunteer... sometimes we take a bit to reply to things.

The images appear to be 'bystander selfies'... in other words, images taken with his camera, by someone that he asked to do so. They were taken with the same type of camera (an Olympus E-3) that seems to have been consistently used for his other images, and they don't show up as having been published anywhere else on the internet. In such cases, these aren't really thing that we can simply 'delete'.... they need to go to a DR. While the normal 'rule' is that the photographer retains copyright, in the case of a 'bystander selfie' the copyright may indeed be 'joint', in that the subject contributed to it by posing the image, or the photographer may have given up their rights by surrendering the only copy and being anonymous. A joint owner then might, or might not, have the right to license the image without the consent of the other person. It all depends on, essentially, the finer points of Hungarian copyright law, and that's not something that's likely to have ever been discussed much on Commons.

As it is, it's unlikely that an administrator is going to delete these unless that is the consensus at an actual DR. Revent^talk 12:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Have you watched the category (not the subcategory!!!) what I wrote? See directly File:Katalin Szili & Tibor Végh.jpg ->

camera manufacturer Canon

type of camera Canon EOS 5D Mark II

What are you talking about? Besides that I have an exchange of letters with Péter Tibor Vegh, in which he acknowledged that he was not taken these photos just he did not provide other license than the other (taken with an Olymus) from their photos.

The question was not that an Admin will going to delete these pictures... It is normally that people confirmed bad licenses by license reviews? But Your comment is also frightful for me... Fauvirt (talk) 10:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

One more thing.. since may 2016 are Picasa Web Albums "shutting down"... (but if by Flickr uploading-review is the same carelessness...) Fauvirt (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fauvirt: There is no need to use 38 question marks, the overuse of ?/! is considered rude. Please note that everyone here is a volunteer. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I hope, it is ok now (template) and now can someone to answer my question without that calling into question what I wrote. I am a volunteer as well. Look around how many requests are done since June... I had only one question. What is the value of a license review if it do not check anything the authenticity of the license? Makes sense?... beyond (according to these) that the uploader (and all who visit the descriptive page) can think that he received a(n often in fact false) confirmation that he was right. Fauvirt (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Photographs were taken by self timer and the author Tibor (not "Peter"...) Végh uploadaded the photos under a valid license. That's the case. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes.. it is a selfie with an other photographers camera.. my goodness... +i have an e-mail from Tibor Végh in which he writes that he is not taken those pictures. If you need I can ask and send it to the OTRS. Fauvirt (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fauvirt: Sorry, I looked at a variety of the images he took, and File:Végh Tibor 2010.JPG (not in the subcategory), saw the camera matched (the Olympus), and that he was wearing the same clothing as in the handshake photos. I see now that some of the images were with the EOS. To be honest, it's a little hard to read what you originally posted here, since it's multiple comments run together.

The license reviews were done by an robot, that merely checks that the uploaded image was indeed on Picasa under the indicated license when it checked... it's mainly intended to prevent issues if the image is later deleted from or has it's license changed on Picasa, and to filter out images that were 'not' shown as under that license there. They were also shown on Picasa as being 'his', and when I searched them on Google they didn't show up as being published anywhere else on the internet.

The bot is not able (or intended) to catch issues like you're pointing out, and a human might have easily thought the same thing I did, that he could have handed someone his camera.

If he did not take the images, and does not own the copyright, then we need to delete them unless we get permission, but we don't have 'proof' of that unless you contact OTRS about it. Without that, they should really go to a DR, in my opinion. Other people might think differently. Revent^talk 14:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry too, I forget that one of the pics is ok, and we get from one an permission too_{Unfortunately, this is not the case now.. the opportunity lost with the proof coercion...Fauvirt (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)} - I have just talked to Tibor Végh. He will deleted from his own google album this pic's what was taken by the official photographer of the event of the Hungarian Socialist Party (which Photos are not used officially).

And sorry (Norden was so confident) that I neglect this: "has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer"... so and thank you the answer! Oky, I go to a DR. Fauvirt (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I hope everything is well done: Commons:Deletion requests/Some photos from Tibor Végh. Fauvirt (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

 Question It would be solved by the {{License review}}, that if the check did just a bot would the icon to be replaced whit an general (and not a license) ckek icon e.g. and in the text to initiate a personally carried check and/or clarified that this check is not to proof for the licencig correctness of the files in the original site (source)..? What do you think @Revent and Leoboudv? Fauvirt (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

Does File:Duray mail 2015.png have a problem of privacy? It shows one private email and a pair of GMail user names. Isn't the GMail layout copyrighted?. Doesn't it fit one of the speedy deletion criteria?

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Files deleted --A.Savin 09:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Uploader just told you 'no', lol. Hit harder. Revent^talk 14:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Redeleted. Revent^talk 14:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

This sockpuppet Szm2010 showed up. MechQuester (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean something like this: Category:Sockpuppets of Szm020730? If you spot his sockpuppet, just insert {{sockpuppet|Szm020730}} into its user page. --jdx ^Re: 14:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

That works. MechQuester (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Blocked and nuked. --Achim (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I took this picture in a street, but the metadata of the file says that its coordenades are from other point of the city. In maps like this, the file appears in a mistaken place. ¿Can anyone correct obvious mistake in the EXIF data of the picture?--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@TaronjaSatsuma: I uploaded a new version of the file with the incorrect GPS location removed. You can use {{Location}} to add the correct location to the file page if you want. Revent^talk 09:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Admins,

This youtube clip by CBC (Canada Broadcasting Corporation) has the word standard youtube license. What does this mean and can a single image from the clip be uploaded to Commons or is the youtube clip totally copyrighted? At 2:02, it has a brief image clip of en:Pandelela Rinong who won 2 Olympic medals now. Just curious, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

No, unfortunately Standard Youtube License is not a compatible license. Jcb (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, "Standard Youtube License" is really just "All Rights Reserved" (copyrighted) but with exceptions for YouTube (who are given unrestrictive rights). Bidgee (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• OK. Thanks for all your replies here on the meaning of the license. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

reporting it here again. 2010szm MechQuester. This guy is so persistent. :/

(talk) 15:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Jcb (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jcb: A CU and rangeblock might be a good idea. Revent^talk 16:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/2010szm - Jcb (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Please delete the fist upload because it may contain geographic data of the place of origin within the EXIF data set (and would show where I live). --Mattes (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Jcb (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

 Thank you.! --Mattes (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

An admin should probably review the image at {redacted} to see if it needs deleting under Commons:BLP. (I don't want to create a deletion nomination, as that would leave the title searchable.) Basically someone has uploaded a recent-looking portrait of someone, and the title gives their full name and location and claims that they are a "prostitute" and a "slut". If the person is really a famous prostitute then maybe the image can be kept, but more likely this is just an attack image. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 19:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm asking for some alternative viewpoints from Commons administrators with regard to policy on sysop protection of user talk pages. Yesterday my edit to Dcoetzee's user talk page was reverted by Billinghurst and the page immediately restricted to sysop edits only.[1] This is problematic for a number of reasons and I believe is not an admin action supported by policy in these circumstances. Billinghurst's reply to my request to unprotect the talk page was that in their view edits to a banned user talk page are 'counter-productive', this is not supported by the history of this page, nor based on any current use of the page, nor on any possible action by Dcoetzee or myself. The page has never been misused by anyone, nor has it been used to discuss the WMF office lock in any inappropriate way. Here's a summary:

1. Dcoetzee's account was WMF office locked by agreement almost two years ago with no public rationale. Since that date there has never been any misuse of the talk page.
2. The talk page is primarily used to log notifications for deletion requests. Dcoetzee uploaded over 28,000 images on this account including many valued Google Art project images. These and others may have their copyright discussed, and the talk page is the best place for those of us interested in Dcoetzee's groundbreaking GLAM related uploads to keep an eye on what happens to the collections.
3. Dcoetzee's account was central to the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute, one of the most well known cases of "sweat of the brow" claims against public domain images on Commons. The talk page remains an obvious place for GLAMs and others to ask questions about these uploads that can then be picked up by other volunteers or the WMF who watch the page.
4. I will be resurrecting Dcoetzee's Fair Use upload bot, which transfers files to be deleted from Commons to other projects, questions may be mistakenly raised on Dcoetzee's talk page and this is another reason I keep an eye on the talk page.
5. The edit that was reverted was to trim a boilerplate notification, something I have a script to do and has been operating in a limited way to keep a few busy user talk pages readable and to preempt the maximum template transclusion problem sometimes seen on long user talk pages. This was the edit reverted yesterday, though in the 18 months I have been doing this there has never been an objection or revert of the changes, neither has Billinghurst claimed my edit was problematic or unhelpful.

I believe that all administrator actions should be made "positively", in that action should only ever be taken where there is good cause to take action and where the action itself is both justified under existing consensus based policy or guidelines and where the action is of long term benefit to the project. In this case the action damages the project as it has become harder to work out how to keep an eye on Dcoetzee's uploads apart from watching all 28,000 images, and impossible to discuss Dcoetzee's uploads in one place. For these reasons I ask that the indefinite protection of Dcoetzee's user talk page is removed.

It would be appropriate for an administrator to add a notification of this discussion on AN to Dcoetzee's talk page. This is currently impossible for non-admins to do and others that watch Dcoetzee's user talk page will find it helpful. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• I  Support unprotecting Dcoetzee's talkpage per Fæ's reasoning above. We don't want any questions or DR notices to be missed. I've left a notification of this discussion on Dcoetzee's talk. INeverCry 20:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support "User pages" are not the property of the person operating the account. User pages are something shared with the Wikimedia community under the same free license as all other submitted content. If there is a particular reason to protect a user page then protection might be applied. Otherwise, the default assumption should be that all kinds of users have an interest in the content posted on userpages. In the case of this user page, notices about any of their many thousands of uploads might appear by an automated process on their user page if it is not blocked. The Wikimedia community is harmed when those notices do not appear in that expected location, because people doing maintenance will not be able to find the logs in the usual place. I would not want that page locked without a reason. A sufficient reason might be "certain classes of users get locked pages", but if that is to be the case, then someone needs to put that rule on record before enforcing it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - in principle user talk pages should not be protected, unless it's really needed for some reason. I don't see any need to protect this specific talk page - Jcb (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - I'm not an admin but I support unblocking the talk page based on the rational given. Particularly since there has been no abuse of the talk page, there is no reason to lock it. Reguyla (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I had already explained in the past, why we never should full protect talk pages of users who have uploaded anything. No need to repeat myself, please establish a different rule or unprotect asap. --A.Savin 23:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

---

 Done per consensus above - Jcb (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I beg your pardon @Jcb: . Are you a neutral party to be closing this discussion? Has this even had a day to be discussed? Please describe the urgency for you action? There is 24 hours in a day, and you take away the ability for the world to comment with unnecessarily early closure, and one that does not even let the person who placed the protection to be able to comment. Truly that is now the process here?  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's not make the case bigger than it is. You protected 1 (one) page that should not have been protected in the first place. This protection causes that some deletion nominations go unnoticed. This could be resolved by weird modifications to scripts, but such modifications will probably never be implemented. At least they are not available now. Before undoing such a single protection, it's good to ask for some opinions, but not more than that. All admins make mistakes. We should correct each other when necessary. We did so in this case. No need to spend more energy on this. Jcb (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

 Support Jcb's decision to unblock. Taivo (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

In short. I am not in disagreement with some of the points raised. I would not normally block a user talk page, this page is an exception. We don't have a rule or exception in the policy about banned user talk pages, and that is not a surprise, such a decision is by conversation as we are having here. Here is why I think that the protection should remain, and how we can do matters better than direct our users to the talk page of a banned user for the administrative matters that were raised.

1. User talk pages are the page that we use to contact that party or for conversations with that party. These talk pages are not general conversation pages, nor are they monitoring pages. We cover this subject matter at Commons:Talk page guidelines.
2. Re blocking of user talk pages. I challenge that we have a principle of not blocking such pages, it is our convention not to do so. Our principle is around blocking of pages as required, and only as required, and the policy implements that principle, our convention flows from there. Yes, it is quite unusual for us to block a user talk page, and I see this page as an exception to our convention.
3. This is a banned user, and WMF only bans users for the most egregious abuse of user or privilege. The commentary about why is not relevant as the WMF has holistically explained their reasons for not releasing such detail.
4. As a community we should not be encouraging the use of the talk page of a banned user. The banned user should not have a home to watch, they should not be encouraged or given side doors in which to participate.
5. If you want the monitoring functions or discussion spaces for the matters that you wish to have then please create them, and we can put in redirects, soft or hard. That is not beyond our ability. We can put in place instructions that directs users elsewhere, we can write exceptions to our scripts so that deletion nominations are put elsewhere. Clearly all within capability, and one would say more suitable for the purpose which you describe. Instruction and information to manage those needs. We should be handling the bigger issues that you raise in a more intelligent and wise approach that we think that watching a user talk page is the best and only approach is simply daft.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
6. I would state that the requirements that Fae mentions can all be adequately addressed by the community while retaining the protection on the page. I would even say that with a small amount of diligent and thoughtful work that we can have a better result to inform users who are inadvertently using this talk page to better outcomes.

 — billinghurst sDrewth 00:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Not to draw this out any further but in correction to a statement you made above, it has become common practice to lock users talk pages when blocking them, It happens all the time on the WMF wiki's not just here. I don't agree with it, but it is a common tactic. Additionally, this user was banned months ago and the talk page was not locked until recently, why the decision to do it now? Is there some evidence to show this user is socking? Reguyla (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Re 1: Consider en:User talk:Jimbo Wales. What sort of talk page is that? Talk pages are public for a reason, and, until talk page stalking becomes an anti-pattern and discouraged, I do not see how "these talk pages are not general conversation pages, nor are they monitoring pages".
• Re 4: Banned means that their participation in the project in any way should not be allowed. That does not mean they should not be contacted with talk pages, so that other stalkers may respond to the messages. Banning does not mean the contributions prior to the ban are no longer valid, and the matters posted on the talk page is related to the contributions prior to the ban.
• Re 5: Yes, afaik hard redirects do redirect the notifications from our scripts, however watcher's watchlists do not get redirected. From a coder's perspective, "we can write exceptions to our scripts" on a case-by-case basis is a hack and should not be done. If you move the page and leave a hard redirect, yes it works, yet I do not find how the result of that is any different from the current unprotected user talk page.
• Re Reguyla: Afaik, here, full protection of a user talk page upon an indef block does not look common to me here on commons --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Zhuyifei1999: Thanks for the bit of SQL. It is worth highlighting that despite a "purge" on these pages in the distant past (almost all being over 8 years ago), of the total of 218 user talk pages currently indef protected, only a tiny percentage of these actions have occurred in the last few years and there is no direct correlation with WMF office actions. It would be reasonable to conclude that despite a handful of highly problematic troll accounts including some protection added by members of Oversight, removing most of the past indef protections would pose no risk to the project, perhaps that would be worth considering for anyone proposing how the page protection guidelines could be improved. Here's the summary for the last 3 years and you can see the full report here:

Breakdown of user talk pages indef protected

Total	Pages protected (admin)	Year
1	WayneRay (Odder)	2016
5	WhiteWindow (Tiptoety); Svenbot (Sven Manguard); Belissarius (Odder); Meco (Natuur12); A1cb3 (Tiptoety)	2015
6	Manto30-08 (Hedwig in Washington); SaidHadraj (Alan); Gabry2727 (Blackcat); Rqwqwr1rgnaa (Blackcat); Melkor65 (Natuur12); Cotton (Blackcat)	2014

--Fæ (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

(@Fæ: can you try changing the admin from the blocking admin to the protecting admin? Idk if the best way is to join the logging table. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC))

@Zhuyifei1999: Quarry updated, please double check the query for me, I'll probably take another look tomorrow based on your suggestions (feel free to email me rather than going on a tech tangent here). I only get a fraction of the same results, so it's quite a different meaning to the one I expected. My uninvestigated guess is that this might be because during the mass renaming of accounts by the WMF, there's a disconnect between original logged page ID and the current page, so those are being dropped when the protection table intersects with logging. An interesting example is Starship9000 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) where the account was blocked in 2013, but the talk page was not protected until 2016, so the overall pattern using this query may look quite different even if the other differences are explained. --Fæ (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Breaking out this discussion as a tangent to the original thread. It does seem that in the Global SUL renamings the wiki database cannot easily track the history of accounts that have been renamed as "<original account name>~commonswiki" since protection and logs were made. It's not a big issue, but it may cause anyone analysing trends to jump to poor conclusions.

In terms of analysing older blocked accounts, there are two that might illustrate how account blocks and page protections may be applied for very different scenarios than simply banned users. Raising these for views from the admins protecting the talk pages as well as others, as these might be cases worth clarifying the guidelines for, as the use of talk page protection may be inconsistent at this time:

1. Katepanomegas (talk · contribs · logs · block log), this account was blocked in 2013 based on the user retiring and the user talk page indef protected against edits due to apparent anonymous harassment and the account being compromised, though the user did not specifically request it. The account has uploaded 117 images which are still current on Commons. @INeverCry: for a view on whether the protection is appropriate for removal, in the light that the risk of any harassment must be minimal after 3 years and the account itself can remain blocked.
2. Joymaster (talk · contribs · logs · block log) died in an accident in 2010. The account was indef blocked and the talk page protected against edits. Joymaster uploaded 5,320 photographs which are current on Commons. In the light that the talk page can be usefully open for edits to discuss and coordinate Deletion Requests, per the above discussion/brief consensus, asking the blocking admin for a view on removing the talk page protection while leaving the notice so that everyone can respect the circumstances, @Odder: .

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fæ: You want to use the talkpage of deceased user for discussing and coordinating Deletion Requests? Seriously? --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Er, yes. This is not intended as disrespectful in any way. Talkpages are not owned by the account holder, and as in this case the deceased user uploaded over 5,000 photographs, I can think of no better place for the community of volunteers to keep an eye on this collection of uploads. If not on the deceased user's talk page, a place where everybody can understand and respect the unfortunate circumstances, then where else?

Out of interest this report shows there are only a handful of blocked accounts where the user talk pages are indef protected and the accounts uploaded over 100 images to Commons. For some accounts there are serious oversight issues that make protection a sensible precaution, for others there is room for discussion about the long term and how best to ensure deletion requests for these collections are noticed and the outcome as transparent as possible for our community. --Fæ (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The full protections of the talk pages for Joymaster and Belissarius were performed as a courtesy due to their having passed away; I think I've done this influenced by a long-standing tradition from the Polish Wikipedia where user pages (and user talk pages) were/are protected on learning such sad news. I have never considered that a talk page might still be useful after a user's passing, and still feel unsure about it—I think maybe one central page automatically gathering notices that will never be read because of a user's death, perhaps based on a talk page's inclusion in a category would be better—but I can be persuaded otherwise. odder (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between how user pages are handled on Wikipedias, where though it is not consistent, it has become more common to protect user talk pages without cause when it is known that the user has died (see examples at de:Wikipedia:Gedenkseite für verstorbene Wikipedianer) and on Commons where we tend to avoid protection unless there are other reasons for doing so; per the above stats. I believe the source of this difference is a practical one, on Wikipedias active volunteers may create hundreds of articles but more rarely thousands. Consequently an active user's talk page may have a small handful of deletion requests for articles in a year, but rarely more than this unless there has been an issue. On Commons today we are lucky enough to have 3,360 user accounts with more than a thousand images successfully uploaded, so we see active users having several deletion requests a month on their talk pages, without this being a poor reflection on the user. For myself, having loaded nearly two million images, my user talk page gets archived every 12 days yet it always has deletion requests on it; were I to suddenly cease editing, it would be a comfort to know that when deletion requests were raised on my uploads, that interested users could still find the notices on my talk page and act to help maintain and preserve my GLAM related upload projects. Though, as above, it might be possible to redirect deletion request notices somewhere else, this seems an overly complex solution compared to keeping a deceased user's talk page on your watch-list.

@Odder: , though I understand why you have protected these two user talk pages because the users have died, and that this may be done as a courtesy, the statistics show this is not common practice for our project to protect their talk pages against all future notices. As has been explained being unable to edit the talk page is likely to hamper the ability for other volunteers interested in the deceased user's contributions to help by tracking deletion notices and positively contributing to the discussions. It may also put off volunteers from raising deletion requests for these collections which again is not a net benefit to our project. By the way, I appreciate where you have linked to memorial pages on other projects, that's a good idea for the talk page notice. --Fæ (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Fæ: The Katepanomegas acct was blocked as compromised because of edits like this which were also done by several sock accounts. I can't remember now if Katepanomegas emailed me or what checkusering I did at the time. In any event, I'd say you're right that the threat has passed. I've unprotected the talkpage. INeverCry 19:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm doubtful about the accuracy of the quarry as I didn't see User talk:Jorgeroyan there. He passed away in 2014; but that account is/was jointly operated by another admin, Barcex as the user page says. Anyway I didn't see the need for protection; just a template {{Deceased}} on top may enough. Jee 06:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

  (In case it matters, the query meant indef full-protected talk pages of indef blocked users. I do not consider protected talk pages of not-blocked users relevant to this discussion; thus added the restriction to the results of the original query, and Fae kept the restriction in his fork.) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks for pointing this out. But it is (fully protected irrespective of whether blocked or not) is relevant here as the only benefit of not protecting to see the DRs and other requests by page watchers/passer by. Here an admin can post a DR notice there; not others. This is not good. Jee 10:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

  Indeed, there are 187123 user talk pages (non-subpages) protected without a block. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

  @Zhuyifei1999: These results aren't accurate. Adolf Hitler~commonswiki, Blofeld of SPECTRE, Homo lude, and many others among those 187 are indefinitely blocked with the talk protected. INeverCry 18:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

  Hmm I didn't know MediaWiki store usernames in the ipblocks tables differently than page titles. That is fixed and query updated. 123 of them are without blocks and 281 with indef blocks. Thanks for spotting that error --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

  In that 123, I see at least one deceased user and a few LTA socks (probably locked rather than blocked). Many of these 300+ protections likely resulted from sock stalking at the time, while others, like Essjay, are ancient history. INeverCry 00:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

  Here's a linked list of the 123 unblocked accts: User:INeverCry/Protected talk pages. INeverCry 01:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Fæ: , @Steinsplitter: , @Odder: User talk:ArtMechanic is a fully protected talkpage of a deceased user who died in 2010, and yet notification of DRs by admins have been posted there up to 2 days ago. Admins like me, Ellin Beltz, and EugeneZelenko are responsible for a lot of DR/CSD work, so these deceased user talkpages are probably going to get hit with notifications anyways if they've done a significant ammount of uploading. Perhaps watching these pages is a better idea than protecting them, though we have a lot of retirements so watchlisting may only be a short-term way of monitoring them. As for old protections like User:Essjay~commonswiki, those could be removed without any problems. I've looked at quite a few of the unblocked acct talk protections, and they're "user requested" or "retired" protections from years ago. I would think the indef-blocked talk protections are mostly based on temporary socking/trolling, so most of those are long past being useful. INeverCry 02:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
• I forgot to note that a number of these protections are of redirected talkpages. INeverCry 02:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
• Here's an update on blocked users with full-protected talkpages: https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/11966. Down to 159 from 281. I removed protections from most sock talkpages that were done from 2005 to 2010. INeverCry 23:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello.Please make this IP stops responding to requests and responded to the the request.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Based on this archived VP discussion, the video File:Panama Canal Time lapse.webm has a previous non-free revision that should probably be hidden (though not deleted altogether.) Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 10:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Nick (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if this is some kind of exempt account or a habitual copy violator. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi all,

There is an ongoing discussion here that may needs administrator's input. Thanks. Wikicology (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

This file needs some revision deletion. Please delete the many unrelated revisions added by User:Ctd18. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done History cleaned, upload protected for a month, user warned. INeverCry 19:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Could admins please look into the edits and uploads of Md.abdulnabi92 (talk · contribs)? Dozens of photos uploaded for Simple Wikipedia articles that are being deleted. I don't know if many of them are necessary to keep around on here, especially the map-like ones he's uploading. Only (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Assuming there is no problem with the rights to these, they look offhand like things we'd want. I think you are right to be suspicious about the couple of these with maps. - Jmabel ! talk 00:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I deleted speedily 9 photos, as I described in user talk:Md.abdulnabi92. Taivo (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, could you please import w:cs:MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js/local defaults as MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js/cs because this page contains Czech localization? Thanks in advance, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't understand why the name proposal in https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Pacific_Gas_and_Electric_magazine_(1914)_(14802361193).jpg&diff=204751812&oldid=204726860

"does not comply with renaming guidelines" ??????????. It's the original description in the magazine.

Also the original description in https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:International_Studio_an_Illustrated_Magazine_of_Fine_and_Applied_Art_(1908)_(14766567414).jpg&diff=204765684&oldid=204758368 ??????

And some more! 2003:45:5C52:501:FC00:EF5F:2B2F:4381 11:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@2003:45:5C52:501:FC00:EF5F:2B2F:4381: Essentially, because the particular files are within the 'scope' of a particular bulk upload project, that obtains images through a somewhat convoluted pipeline. Fae is using a deliberate naming scheme, and we generally respect the name the original uploader used unless it's pretty clearly 'wrong' in some way.... the names he's using describe the source. Revent^talk 09:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe, the first admin has not found the image in the book and could not prove it and the second admin has seen, that the first has denied the renaming of the first file. And so we have some books/categories with mixed names as here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:International_Studio_an_Illustrated_Magazine_of_Fine_and_Applied_Art_(1908) or here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pensacola_harbor;_beautiful_views_and_pertinent_facts_(1904)

By the way: I can`t remember that User:Fae has insisted on the these unusable file names ("It's a Wiki"). 2003:45:5C52:501:D44A:DAAF:4A5F:A785 12:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

A copy violator: Poll51 (talk · contribs). He removed three warnings on his talk page. Maybe he needs the latest warning? Helgi-S (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 18:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Administrators,

The notes say: "An email has been received at OTRS concerning this file, and can be read here by users with an OTRS account. However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file. This may, among other reasons, be because there was no explicit release under a free license, or the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published." I do not understand that the person who appears on the photograph and who owns this picture why she cannot confirm permission for this file. I would like to remind you that these proceedings have started with the caution copyvio that this picture comes from: the link below

http://idchungary.hu/hun/profiles/presenter/261710-prof-dr-hidasi-judit?lan=HUN

This means that Prof. Dr. Judit Hidasi used her own picture on this page freely. If she can utilize this picture of her on this webpage, she can use the picture named above everywhere where she wants becase this photo is her possession. This photograph is an identity card picture that has been taken for 10 years and she paid money for having depicted but of course she has not kept the bill (it would be nonsense to ask the bill from her) but the photographer's shop was closed and he is unavailable. Prof. Dr. Judit Hidasi likes this photo of her very much, therefore she uses it at every official occasions where she may but she can do it freely because the picture is her inalienable property. The copyright holder is the person who owns this picture because she has bought this picture so by the act of buying the copyright fell to Ms Judit Hidasi, who owns this copyroght fully. So the picture belongs to her and the copyright holder is only Ms. Judit Hidasi and nobody else, therefore she declares about the copyrights legally. And I would like to remind you the permission procession of one of Ms. Flóra Kádár's picures when the declaration of the Director-general of National Theatre of Szeged, Hungary was first questioned in the case of her photograph published in the yearbook 1957/58 of the theatre named above but this declaration was accepted at the end:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Florakadar.jpg

I hope you accept this explanation.Borgatya (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Ping @BU Rob13: Thuresson (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow admins! I have written a longish comment but I have realised that it should have been going out to the admins doing the deletion and especially blockings instead. I summarise here for the impatient:

• There is a problem with handling inexperienced commons users who end up here by a redirect of a local Wikipedia uploader form. Commons have stricter policies users are unfamiliar with. It's not our job to teach them, but it should be our job to explain them, at least briefly, but clearly the reasons behind image deletion and why they should go and discuss first before reuploading; and definitely it should be our compulsory job to provide an explanation without doubts when someone gets blocked for not the most obvious reasons.
• I was asked to help a user, where the images were deleted with "out of scope" deletion message, no talk page explanation; the user reuploaded (probably thought the images were "lost"), then he got a biolerplate with "do not reupload" (correctly); however he has been blocked indefinitely on the spot, without any further explanation. The user was furious because he thought the images were deleted by copyright reasons, and since he owns the copyright of his own book this understandably caused impolite comments, where no explanation was happened either on commons side.
• So please, explain the poilerplates. It it's out of scope, explain how and why (and consider that you may be wrong: you expect the user to ask, you may do it as well). If it's privacy problem, tell it, and explain it on the talk page. Two sentences would suffice. Do not think the user can find your deletion request, your admin noticeboard entry, or able to decipher a 10+ page general policy. Be gentle, help them.
• I ask because commons, as I have mentioned in the comment linked, have the long-standing bad vibe of being unfriendly, unhelping, and deletioninst without reasons. You don't have to convince me, just please remember this when your next not-so-obvious reupload case comes by. I would make this comment sticky, if this were a forum. :-)

Thank you! --grin ✎ 10:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

May be another reason to switch off cross-wiki uploads? User edits from one project and warned/blocked in another is very odd. Jee 13:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Since this CFD is regarding one of the most populated categories on Commons, I am cross posting here for wider reach. Rehman 13:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

So what's news... Anyway a whole raft of stuff around. Flickr passed images with en wp type links in plus a spam link. So far - Nails, Movers and Packers, Mens skin products, email marketing, SEO marketing, etc all from 1 upload accounts. Then this sort of thing here and this one - perfectly valid images but with the addition of spam links. I'm guessing the accounts may be related and if not are from abused/open proxies. Those who are bored can follow my trail --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Herbythyme: How about not bored but just OCD? Out of filter #85 I've been getting a continuous stream of spambots without pattern names and from patrolling new uploads, a number of moving-spammer style uploaders of stock work and business shots. We also have an LTA spammer at filter #155, though his latest spamming a few days ago wasn't picked up by the filter. Selfie shoes is still around too, and some of the classic pattern accts, though a lot less than in past years. I'm thinking with both of us around, the spammers will be experiencing a serious drop in business. As for sockmasters, our biggest current pain in the ass is this guy, who uploads India-related copyvios and crops of Modi and other Indian political figures. Perhaps at some point you or I should try to get our CU bit back... INeverCry 19:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok - not realised it had got that bad. There always used to be some minor abuse of Commons however what I found in a couple of hours yesterday went way past that. Thanks for the info - I guess! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Strange to say, but on 29th of August I went through category:SEO and nominated a lot of files for deletion. I noticed the spam and removed it from files, which were not nominated. All users had name firstname+initial+familyname, all small letters written into one long word. Most uploaded one file, but some two and one even three. Taivo (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've been rather more aggressive... The ones you describe are throw away bot created pattern accounts almost certainly. I'm indef them as I go along. I'm now adding the URLs to the blacklist if I find them on more than one image. Maybe that will help a bit. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I hereby seek admin intervention in regards to a serious issue that has arisen on a German-speaking commons forum (Commons:Forum#wieder mal ärgerliche Verschiebungen and Commons:Forum#File moves requested by Wesley Mouse). A few days ago I proposed the renaming of a couple of files based on criteria 2 of the file renaming guidelines. A user who obviously has the file mover tools, carried out the moves, albeit hastily and without following the necessary checks in order to determine whether the moves were justified or not. And I did find that rather strange that the moves were done within seconds of my request. Anyhow, a user from the German forum pinged my name into a discussion that I was not even involved with, and I did not understand why they had dragged an innocent and uninvolved user into a heated debate and in a language that I am not fluent in understanding.

A user accused me in this edit of being a vandal merely because I proposed a file renaming. How is that an act of vandalism? Another editor in this edit informed the file mover to "report me for vandalism". What vandalism have I undertaken? Since when was making a proposal become an act of vandalism? Does that mean by myself opening this very discussion, that I am carrying an act of vandalism? Anyhow, the latter post was later clarified further, and the user actually meant to call the file mover a vandal, and not accuse myself of such act. I then was called an alien, which I found offensive and borderline xenophobic. And now another user is acting in mockery and agreeing that I am a vandal, just because I put forward a suggestion to change the name of a file. Would someone please explain since when it became an act of vandalism to suggest a change? I think it is time that commons has a section explaining to users what is not vandalism, and the fact they are treating situations which are not clearly vandalism as such, that their actions cause more harm for the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors. One editor has apologised for falsely accusing me of being a vandal. The others are not so forthcoming, and I am finding it deeply distressing that I am being tarnished as a vandal, when I personally despise acts of vandalism, and I for one am very rapid in reporting acts of vandalism over at EN:WIKI, as part of my task to eradicate vandalism. Wes Mouse  ^T@lk 01:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

"A user accused me in this edit of being a vandal merely because I proposed a file renaming."

No, they accused Mich.kramer of vandalism. If you actually look at the diff they used ([2]), it's Mich.kramer's edit; you are the previous version.

"Another editor in this edit informed the file mover to 'report me for vandalism'."

No "Ich hätte Mich.kramer daraufhin sofort auf der Vandalismus-Seite gemeldet." = "I would have immediately reported Mich.kramer to the vandalism site."

"I then was called an alien, which I found offensive and borderline xenophobic."

No, "But let the fingers of alien images" is a literal translation from the German phrasing. Ralf Roleček, who clearly said he is EN-0 and even wrote "(Google Translation)" in that edit (!!!) was no doubt typing in "Fremd" (which means alien/strange/foreign in the sense of "not of you.") In proper, non-machine translated English it would be "Don't touch others' images." This was explained to you multiple times, by multiple people. [3][4] (WP:IDHT)

Your behaviour there has been terrible. You were not called a vandal and, based on that ridiculous and baseless misunderstanding, have not assumed good faith ("Act on finding the fault from others, not attacking the innocent"[5]; " You should be banned from Wikimedia for your xenophobic comment."[6]; "You are the one patronizing me, so don't give me that bullshit!"[7]), despite demanding it from others (who have been) at least four times ([8][9][10][11]). There are so many personal attacks (like calling someone a "Fuckwit" [12]) and assumptions of bad faith here, I don't know how you weren't blocked. Consider this then a warning; if you continue to attack others, you will be blocked from editing. Эlcobbola _talk 15:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

This image has been repeatedly used for image vandalism on en:Hello Internet. CGP Grey continues to egg-on this behavior on his podcast so deleting the image and salting it would end this behavior. While I could ask for protection on en-wp, getting rid of this file would cut out the middleman. I'm hesitant to nominate the file for deletion because I understand my argument doesn't fit with deletion policy. I could use some advice as to how to fix this on Commons. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 23:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

What about copy of this file:Flaggy Flag.png? Taivo (talk) 06:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted and salted this too. There was no usage or evidence of notability beyond the cross-wiki problem mentioned above. No need to give cross-wiki vandals ammunition. INeverCry 07:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I ASK ADMINISTRATORS FOR PROTECTION of the media file from continuing Vandalism by Winkelvi, who at his/her own discretion and without any discussion modified the original file and threatens the author. --LanaSimba (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

No one is vandalising anything in regard to the original Psinakis photo you submitted, LanaSimba. When you uploaded the original photo, you did so under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license which allows for free use and modifications. I cropped the image to comply with the manual of style for infobox images, fixed the sharpness, the lighting, and the coloring. This is all allowed under the licensing and you have been credited as the photo's original author. By continuing to revert to the original photo from the cropped, newer version of the same, you are creating an unnecessary redundancy as that photo already exists [ here]. This is why you have been reverted each time. You need to stop edit warring over this. You have been blocked previously for edit warring and will end up blocked for same soon if you don't stop. You have already been warned in the last 24 hours about edit warring in Wikipedia over the Psinakis article, told to stop being a Single Purpose Account (WP:SPA) and start editing other articles or risk a block for WP:NOTHERE and WP:3RR. Your edits there were extremely disruptive and the article was fully protected for a week because of it. Your behavior here in Commons is taking you the same direction. It's time for you to stop and step away, hopefully while reading up on Wikipedia policy. Winkelvi (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi As the author of the page I DISAGREE with the new form of the picture, this is my opinion. The original file perfectly matches to the infobox as well! And please stop threatening me with block each time for presenting any kind of my opinion.I insist on Protection from Administrators!!! --LanaSimba (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

When you uploaded your photo you agreed to it being modified. The block(s) you might be facing has nothing to do with your opinion, it has everything to do with the disruptive editing behavior you are now exhibiting in both the English Wikipedia and here in Wikimedia Commons. Winkelvi (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It is your behavior is disruptive because you modify page and mediafile without any discussion, only at your own discretion and then accusing me for attempts to revert your modifications with which I DISAGREE! The page Ilias Psinakis was already protected!!! --LanaSimba (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

When you uploaded your photo, you did so with consent to modifications. "Disagree" in principle with the modifications if you like, but you no longer have rights to the photo once it is uploaded here for free use. Modifications can, and will, be made without your consent as you already consented to modifications being made. Winkelvi (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: It would be good practice to upload your cropped image as a new file instead of overwriting the original. --Magnus (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Exactly what I did. And Lana Simba keeps reverting it to her original photo, which, as I have pointed out numerous times, is a redundancy as that version already exists as another file in Commons. Winkelvi (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, you're right. --Magnus (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

As author of the page strongly believe the picture should be reflected in its original form, which matches infobox as well. --LanaSimba (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

You do not own the Psinakis article, Wikipedia does. It is subject to modifications and changes that may be different than what you prefer. You no longer own the image you uploaded, it is now free use and subject to modifications and changes that may be different than what you prefer. That is the agreement you make with Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons when you click the "Save changes" button. As I noted above, it would behoove you to become familiar with Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons policy and guidelines so you can better understand why things happen here the way they do and what is expected of those who edit and contribute. Winkelvi (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I DISAGREE with YOUR EDITS, not with any potential or reasonable edits! And I request another independent editors to review the situation, because you deplete the above mentioned page in any possible way, reducing its contents, cropping picture etc. This is my opinion!--LanaSimba (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

"Independent" editors have told you what I have, at least one being an administrator. That administrator warned you about your disruptive editing behaviors. You have ignored everything anyone has told you that did not fit your now obvious agenda. If you don't stop the disruption, you will end up blocked just as you were blocked last year for the same behavior and refusal to listen to editors and administrators alike. Winkelvi (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

None administrators yet told me your opinion is final. In such disputes should be found a compromise. I have to remind, that you got involved in the article, which subject is obviously out of your sphere of knowledge, rewrote it at your discretion, changed the picture at your discretion. And you keep threatening me for disagreement! --LanaSimba (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

LanaSimba, you wrote: "you got involved in the article...rewrote it at your discretion, changed the picture at your discretion." Indeed, that's how Wikipedia and Commons works: editors editing, changing content, redoing photos, and so on. If this is not something you can understand or will accept about the very nature of both en.wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, then perhaps Wikipedia isn't the place for you and another online wiki will be more to your liking. Winkelvi (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi your citation is not full "you got involved in the article, which subject is obviously out of your sphere of knowledge, rewrote it at your discretion, changed the picture at your discretion." ..., also you undertook the right unanimously decide what facts are matching etc..and delete them together with substantiating links...--LanaSimba (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know what I quoted and why. What I addressed above is represented by the partial quotation. Having "knowledge" of an article subject is not necessary for editing a Wikipedia article. something else you would already know had you taken the time to review Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Everything I have done at the article is in line with policy and guidelines and is appropriate and - so far - agreed upon by other editors. Your edits, by and large, have not been agreed upon by other editors. That "agreement" is called consensus. Another policy/guideline/behavior I suggest you take time to become familiar with. Addressing your insistence of "knowledge" of the article subject, knowledge of Wikipedia and Commons editing take precedence and this is something you demonstrate time and again you have no knowledge of. WP:COMPETENCE is required of Wikipedia editors. You seem to have not reached that level of required competence. Winkelvi (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The only fact that you prefer form over substance says everything about your level of competency... I didn't see any agreement by editors for ALL that you have done to the article. --LanaSimba (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see the Wikipedia page on policies and guidelines: [13] as well as the Wikimedia Commons page on policies and guidelines: [14]. Winkelvi (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support block of LanaSimba per NOTHERE, Winkelvi had uploaded the modified version as a new file which is the correct thing to do, LanaSimba seems to have uploaded their photo without any understanding of the license and policies ... infact I'd go as far as to say they don't have any understanding of what this site even is, LanaSimba you've uploaded the file under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 license which means anyone can, share, copy, distribute and transmit the work without your permission, You should've known all of this before registering and at the end of the day it's not our problem that you don't. –Davey2010^Talk 16:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Forgot to add unless LanaSimba reverts themselves, Drops the "this my photo" attitude and reads the Welcome page as well as the other policies/guidelines I personally believe blocking is the best outcome here. –Davey2010^Talk 16:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The same thing is happening with this user today here [15] and here [16], Davey2010. Competence, SPA, IDHT, willful disruption, and NOTHERE have become the predominant issues with them and I agree that it's time something else be done. Obviously, discussion and repeated explanations aren't the answer. Winkelvi (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I see no need to continue with the discussion. LanaSimba released the file under a free license which allows cropping. COM:OWN is relevant as well. If LanaSimba continues with his disruptive and un-mellow behavior the account will be blocked. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not having a go but they've had plenty of chances at EN and it's achieved nothing, It's obvious the disruption will continue and IMHO they should be blocked for it which should hopefully sink in that we don't tolerate their crap, Blocking isn't going to be punitive ... It's going to be preventative. –Davey2010^Talk 17:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support block If you look at the latest exchange between Lana and NeilN here [17], it's obvious there's a combination of bullheadedness (IDHT) and language barrier (competence) with IDHT now being the predominant issue. That said, you're right, Davey, she has been given enough chances and a preventative block at this point seems the only answer (both here and at EN). Winkelvi (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Jeez. @LanaSimba: Please read the Creative Commons license under which you released the image. You are indeed headed toward an indefinite block. Revent^talk 00:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Please fix double moves to keep edit history. --Denniss (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done --A.Savin 20:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, would the admins mind dealing with this cross-article edit-warrior (Beshogur), who keeps reverting the map's revision even though 3 (!) other users have been reverting him, and despite that the revision in question is actually based on sources? He has the exact same approach on Eng.wiki as well (edit warring, never caring about sourcing anything, ignoring talk pages), and the number of warnings he has received due to this are well within the double digits. He blatantly ignored the talk page here as well, yet continues to edit war -- something he does, unfortunately, on Eng.Wiki every single time too. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot his ad hominem attacks as well towards all users there in question who revert his blatant and continuos disruption; "Because racist Iranians hide the Arab nationality in Iran and changes the orginal map," and "Stop Pan-Iranist nationalistic vandalism."[18] - LouisAragon (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Indef blocked. With all the warnings at en.wiki, I'm surprised he has no block log there. Either nobody's taken him to AN/I, etc, or the admins there are sleeping on the job. INeverCry 02:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

INeverCry, now that's an admin who deserves to be lauded! :-) Heh, ANI is unfortunately a huge waste of time, except if you're up for some hilarious time-consuming "show process" with no result in the end. Lel. Thanks much once again, and all the best - LouisAragon (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Beypeople has uploaded several files which I nominated for deletion. It looks like uploader is using commons to upload files for commercial/advertisement purposes. Please check his/her uploads and do needful. Regards,--Nizil Shah (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

M Z Wojalski requests renaming file Twórcy Łodzi Przemysłowej sculpture, Izrael Kalmanowicz Poznański.jpg to a file name, that already exists, namely as redirect to the file, he wants to rename. Though this is in a strict sense against COM:MOVE (“Files should NOT be renamed only because the new name looks a bit better.”) I think this wouldn’t harm anyone here to switch between file and redirect, but this needs an admin. Convenient link: en:Izrael Poznański, Kalmanowicz was his second name or patronym. — Speravir_Talk – 00:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 00:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Per this Village pump/Copyright discussion, the image File:Inkscape0.45.png has three non-free revisions that should probably be hidden (though not deleted.) The three revisions that should be hidden are as follows:

• 02:54, 16 May 2010
• 05:25, 1 July 2007
• 16:30, 23 March 2007

Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 06:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

1. Email correspondence with Wellcome Library ticket:2016090610022455
2. Deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Wellcome DR request for RAMC
3. Maintenance category Category:Wellcome DR request for RAMC
4. Request to review the DR closure on Jcb's talk page User talk:Jcb#Wellcome DR
5. Village pump notification to encourage volunteer support Commons:Village pump/Archive/2016/08#Copyright reviewers needed for 991 British military medical and wartime photographs up for deletion

On the 22 August, I was contacted by email from a Wellcome Library representative asking for help in identifying matching images from a list provided by the Royal Army Medical Corps, the original donor of the documents in their archive. The RAMC wish to apply a CC-BY-ND-NC licence, rather than the CC-BY licence that the Wellcome Library had presumed would be okay. As such the original release using CC-BY was incorrect and the licence invalid. As a courtesy to the Wellcome, I have investigated which of the images in their spreadsheet are hosted on Commons and created a DR from it. I have made no commitment that the images would be deleted, in fact in my email back to the Wellcome I stated "Not all the images appear copyrightable under either under USA, UK or European intellectual property law as they have become public domain by age", however it seemed sensible to raise the set in a DR so that the wider community could assist in evaluating the copyright status of this varied collection and determine which may have a copyright claim by the RAMC (or any other party) and therefore a ND-NC restriction could apply, and which can be declared Public Domain with no significant doubt. The DR was an attempt to manage this coherently and openly, ensuring that all images that can have a public domain rationale created will be kept.

To summarize, a proportion of the listed RAMC collection images may be argued to be public domain after individual investigation, but it is certain that a large number must be deleted as copyright violations. The copyright license is not being revoked, it was corrected by the Wellcome.

The DR has been closed as a 'keep' by administrator Jcb and the maintenance category removed from the images and deleted. As is customary practice I wrote on Jcb's user talk page asking for a review of the closure,[4] adding some further explanation. Later I copied the original email correspondence to OTRS for the record.[4] After several hours had passed, as mentioned on Jcb's talk page I created a script for Faebot to remove the invalid licenses from the affected images and re-add them to the maintenance category.

It was then five hours after I had asked Jcb for a review and explained that "for all these images the current license can be removed as it was never valid" and I would be automating removal, Jcb blocked my IP address. I had to go on IRC and ask about my account being blocked, as this block stopped me from editing Jcb's talk page. I have since suspended all of Faebot's tasks as I do not want to be accused of by-passing any block and Faebot contributes from more than one IP address. Note I ask that my IP address is kept private, getting it changed for security reasons is a lengthy process with my service provider.

Jcb's arguments make little sense to me. The metadata in the image EXIF is not evidence of copyright, it is exactly the same metadata generated from the Wellcome catalogue that I used when created the image pages on Commons. The licenses have not been revoked, they are being corrected in line with new information from the donor, who did not give the Wellcome direct permission to release the images without a NC-ND restriction. Faebot's actions were not disruptive, they were to remove the invalid licenses and the bot action was five hours after Jcb was notified that I was going to automate these edits.

I consider this action a misuse of sysop tools, with multiple unintended consequences, for an issue of correct copyright of images that should have been discussed, rather than Jcb using their privileged sysop powers to enforce a personal view.

Timeline:

• 22 August - email request for help from the Wellcome. In correspondence I confirm which images are currently hosted on Commons.
• 26 August - DR created. Several people contribute to assessing the copyright status of images.
• 1 September - Jcb closes DR on the basis that "a non revocable license" applied, though it was clear that the copyright claim was from the RAMC.
• 2 September - Jcb deletes maintenance category.
• 6 September 10:11 - returning from travelling, I request a review of Jcb's close on their user talk page, along with explaining the automated removal of invalid licenses.
• 6 September 15:04 - Jcb replies to my request, which I did not read until later on, calling the DR itself disruptive and refusing to reopen the DR.
• 6 September 15:35 - Jcb blocks Faebot, but uses an autoblock which blocks my home IP address. It becomes impossible for me to edit Commons to ask about the block.
• 6 September 15:45 - Jcb puts a warning on my user talk page.
• 6 September 15:56 - Natuur12 removes the IP block after I ask for an investigation on IRC.

Action requested:

I would like alternative views from administrators and preferably an administrator to commit to supporting my actions in:

• Re-opening the DR, with a revised rationale incorporating comments made on Jcb's talk page and the above OTRS ticket.
• Re-adding the temporary maintenance category which applies to all images on Commons which are part of the Wellcome's list.
• Removing the incorrect cc-by-4.0 licenses from the images.

Without a commitment from at least one administrator to back me up, I will have to abandon this attempt to help the Wellcome Library as I do not feel safe from unpredictable actions by Jcb.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

If you do reopen, please do it in smaller batches. That giant request would have been impossible to do with due diligence. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

That's why it's in alphabetic batches. Those batches could be put in several DRs, though it almost amounts to the same thing. One thing you lose with the several-DR approach would be if you investigate a photographer/author/publication or date ranges, then you would want to search across the list to refer to the same keep/delete rationale for all images from the same source. I was using cross-links and anchors in the list to make that easier to follow. --Fæ (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Let me start of by sayin' that the closing comment by Jcb was completely bogus (that's not me being hyperbol, that was literally what I was thinking when I read it). "had a valid license"? and ""no valid reason for deletion"? No, it hadn't and yes there was. That's what the reason the DR was opened in the first place. The licenses was placed by a party which did not own the copyright, and that's why Fæ opened the DR. (aka License laundering, but non-malicious). The fact that not all files were bad, or the fact that one is too lazy to check if they are all bad, does not equal that there is no reason to delete. The reason has been presented, and per our policies the "keep" should present evidence of why they are valid once challenged, not the other way around (once challenged, they are guilty until proven otherwise, etc. etc.) The DR could have been cloed as kept due to administrative reasons, such as "too large DR, pleae reopen in smaller batches", as to appear as a CWPRN (closure without prejudice of re-nomination).

I suggest reopening the DR (And keeping the old comments on the files) and let the DR be open for ~31 days instead, so that we can thoroughly review these files. There was no need to close this DR on the 7 day mark, especially since the DR-opener requested a longer timelimit. Josve05a (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Jcb also claims that EXIF gives special privileges where any deletion request must be posted with special formalities. Nemo 08:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Nemo, this mocking of Jcb here is unacceptable. He says nothing of the sort. It is very common that copyright notices in EXIF are considered at DR when they seem to conflict with licence on Commons. Usually we see "All rights reserved" in EXIF and have to explain using other sources why the author of the image has actually released the image and the EXIF should be ignored. It is a simple matter for Fae to explain that the source JPG has incorrect information about licence in the EXIF and that this error was introduced by Welcome rather than by the copyright holder, therefore this does not count as a "change of heart" over the licence but actually a "correction of a mistake". So much nastiness here, and such a simple solution. A DR listing only those images that should be deleted along with a accurate explanation. Just a few sentences are requires and yet here we are mocking admins and throwing insults. -- Colin (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Realistically I don't think we have the manpower to sort through this. I suggest checking for anything that is in use, leaving it a week so see if anyone want so to do the legwork to save anything else then deleting whats left.Geni (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

+1. I looked at one image this afternoon and it took 30 minutes to confirm the age and thus the copyright status. If we can compile a list of 'in use' images then we can try and ascertain copyright status or find appropriate replacements. Nick (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Nick, you may want to note that large chunks of the collection are related, such as the historically interesting early wartime plastic surgery photographs, which are all from the same album and the same photographer. So if you spend 30 mins researching, try to focus on an album . Many others are of the very-obvious-public-domain type, such as photographs of pre-19th century portraits or WW1 photos with no named photographer, so again if someone were to focus just on these types of images, they could probably get through 10% of the list with a couple of hours of volunteer time.

As for hard cases, yes we might end up presuming significant doubt rather than letting them become volunteer time-sinks. --Fæ (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• I've put these back in Fae's tracking category, so we can have some kind of sanity with the task of looking at them. These are the ones currently in use:

Revent^talk 19:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Licenses replaced for these images and removed from the tracking category. Just one deletion for these may be needed, and can be discussed in the DR if it is re-opened.

Jcb was informed yesterday about this discussion and has been active since, including closing several deletion requests. It seems reasonable to assume that they are not interesting in reverting their closure, or prepared to publicly recognize that their later use of sysop tools to block my accounts, and the removal of the maintenance category was excessive, disruptive and may be considered inappropriate use of the tools. Jcb's actions have been defensive, and the post-hoc justifications for not rethinking their actions have been described by administrators here as bizarre. As Jcb has not taken the common-sense precaution of avoiding making other DR closures on my uploads, for example this DR was closed by Jcb hours after this thread was created, I am concerned that I may experience future problems with Jcb's basic competence on copyright issues, as well as inappropriate and defensive use of their privileged sysop rights in order to "win the argument".

This would be less of an issue if it were not highlighted on a complex copyright request from a respected GLAM partner that I have been working with for two years, and who no committed volunteer supporting the Commons project goals would want to embarrass. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it is worth examining the DR created by Fae and closed by Jcb. The stated reason on the DR is "The copyright of the files has been changed by the Wellcome to CC-BY-NC-ND". This is factually and legally incorrect on many levels. The post at the village pump says "The copyright stated at the source has been corrected to CC-BY-NC-ND". Wellcome cannot "change" the "copyright" of these images and the "CC By-NC-ND" is a licence not a copyright. Offering to licence a copyright image with one of the CC licences does not remove or change the copyright. The DR is badly worded when saying "changed" and the VP notice is better with "corrected". Saying "changed" is unhelpful as one cannot change/revoke such a licence, as Jcb points out. So, based on the DR alone, it is perfectly legitimate to close the DR as invalid. Wellcome cannot change which CC licence the image has, and the "copyright" is and remains the same. Of course, what appears to have happened is Wellcome made a mistake and wrongly tagged images with a free licence.

I have no idea if Jcb saw the VP notice before his DR close. If he did, then it is possible to conclude he was being POINTy about Fae's badly worded request. Fae wrote to Jcb explaining the situation. Look at Jcb's reply (on both his talk page and Fae's). Jcb does not contest Fae's explanation of the licence correction. There is no need for Nick's insulting comments on Jcb's talk page. I don't think anyone doubts that Jcb understands how images can be misstagged with the wrong licence and that this is different to changing one's mind about a licence. Jcb's concern at this point was that a huge DR containing a mix of PD and CC BY-NC-NC images (along with now-incorrect EXIF licence statements) was the wrong way to go about the process. He asked Fae not to use DR as a "work in progress". The comments above agree with this: the community has no enthusiasm for using DR as a work-in-progress on hundreds of images uploaded by bot with the wrong licence.

Fae's response is "I am not going to sort out the mess you created. If you want to have a new DR rather than revert your bad close, you can write it. At this point you are personally responsible for these copyright violations. I refuse to play your bullying game". One can understand at this point why Jcb is refusing to engage further in this matter. Let's examine these four statements.

1. The mess is Fae's and Wellcome's. The fact that Commons now hosts images that it has no right to host is not Jcb's fault. Nor anyone else's here. The mistake is made worse by sheer number of incorrect images uploaded. Which is also not Jcb's fault.
2. Opening a DR is the work of a few minutes. Fae wants Jcb to reopen the original one. This seems more a revenge/satisfaction motive than a practical one since the community has no desire for the original one. Instead we get this AN post and lots of nasty comments about Jcb's competence. If Fae is happy for the violating images to remain on Commons while he/others work out which are PD, then there is no need for a DR while this occurs. He can work on a list in his own user space, as Jcb requests. If he urgently requires the violating images to be deleted, then they should all be deleted and he will have to work with the source library images to work out which are safe for him to re-upload.
3. Jcb is not "personally responsible for these copyright violations". This is something all of us should be concerned with. None of us volunteers and admins are legally responsible for the material that other people upload. Fae, you alone are legally responsible for your uploads. If you are anxious about "copyright violations" then simply created a correctly worded DR with the images you believe should be deleted. This is after all only what Jcb has asked you to do. Instead, you seem to want to keep the copyright violating images on Commons while you and others work out which few are PD. This isn't legally tenable but if you think RAMC won't mind then go for it at your own risk.
4. Wrt bullying, I see obstinacy on both parties, but only one of them has gone to AN to throw insults around.

I should also advise caution in "Removing the incorrect cc-by-4.0 licenses from the images". I presume this is for the PD images. These currently have EXIF stating they are "Copyrighted work" and credit "Wellcome Library, London. Wellcome Images images@wellcome.ac.uk". IANL but removing a copyright notice is unwise unless you are legally confident. It would be better to get RAMC's agreement that a subset of their images are PD and either for them/Welcome to change the EXIF copyright notice, or for them to use OTRS (say) to remove any legal doubt on any volunteer offering to help do this. Should someone contest the PD status of any digital image, those liable would include the uploader and anyone who removed the copyright notice. However, I do think it is useful that this notice be removed from the PD images, so that re-users are clear as to their copyright situation.

Wrt the DR and these images, no admin action is required until a valid DR and targeted is made. I have no comment about the bot block and other actions. There is no indication Jcb has competence problems with copyright or licences. Fae should take care to word his DRs more carefully and accurately, and not to overload that process. -- Colin (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests suggests "It is not the task of the closing admin to engage in detailed legal or factual research in order to find a rationale to keep the file. Under the rules of evidence we apply here, the burden of showing that the file can be validly hosted here lies with the uploader and anyone arguing that it should be kept." So the uploader should do basic homework with or without the help of other volunteers before proceeding with such a DR. Jee 07:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, your statement supports my action, considering that I'm not arguing the files should be kept. I did the exact opposite and created a DR in order to comply with COM:PRP and the request of the GLAM I was working with. --Fæ (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't support any. But I can support a mass deletion and careful undeletion/reupload case by case if its is needed to save the uploader from troubles. Jee 07:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Fae, you were arguing files should be kept. Once you were informed the batch of images had the wrong licence you are obliged to request the removal of the whole batch ASAP using a valid deletion rationale, which you did not give. I'm pretty certain the "GLAM [you were] working with" did not authorise you to keep the files on-Commons while you work out which might be PD due to age or not. Indeed, the source JPG for one image you claim is PD now has EXIF stating it is "Copyrighted work available under Creative Commons by-nc-nd 4.0". So I suspect they disagree with you on the copyright status of these possibly-now-PD works. A claim-of-copyright on a PD image is something I believe you have got very angry about at the VP when it involved another institution. You screwed up your DR rationale and Jcb has shown no mercy about that. You requested the images be kept in DR for "more than the conventional 7 days" to allow others to find out which are possibly PD (a task that Jee's quote from our policy says falls solely on your shoulders). Jcb says to you "So sort them out first, and then nominate the files with a real problem for deletion, but with a valid explanation (which you didn't in the previous DR)." There was never any reason for this AN posting, no reason for anyone to insult Jcb's knowledge of licence law, and certainly not any reason for your very worrying and utterly bogus claim that Jcb is now "personally responsible for these copyright violations". I hope you realise how damaging that claim is on your reputation, and I do strongly suggest you strike it. Certainly there is an unwillingness to give an inch between both you and Jcb, which doesn't help matters, but as uploader, the onus is on you to move this on in a constructive manner. Create a DR. Put the images you want deleted in it. Explain correctly this time why the files were uploaded in error. Heck, you can request a courtesy-deletion for all I care, though some files seem to have been here for two years, which is stretching things a bit, and some files are in-use. -- Colin (talk) 07:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I have asked you many, many times to leave me alone Colin, your hounding is unwelcome and it must be obvious to everyone why you are putting up walls of text finding every possible way of creating hostile argument.

Your spiteful vitriol directed against me over the last 2 years make this project a hostile place where I am unwelcome from even asking for assistance on AN.

In this case your unpleasant emotional language risks damaging Common's long term relationship with a highly respected GLAM partner which is damaging for Commons as a whole.

Find something positive to focus on rather than attacking me. --Fæ (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

So very nice to hear from you again, Fae. Missed you. Lots of love. -- Colin (talk) 08:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Knock it off, both of you. It's getting tiresome. Who would have thought a group of grown men all here to contribute free content could manage to wind each other up so easily. Nick (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Nick, this is not an argument between two parties. I have only had one thing to ask this year of Colin, for him to leave me alone. When one party repeatedly hounds and instigates unwanted contact purely in order to provoke a response, that's not an argument, it's stalkerish and creepy. This crossed the line into misusing this project for harassment a while back. --Fæ (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Nick, It was just a little joke. Show a sense of humour. As for Fae's two personal attacks above, the only valid admin response is to revert both of them and warn Fae that if he repeats that behaviour he will be blocked. Seriously guys, the two posts by Fae above are 100% personal attacks. We have policies against this sort of thing. I am not doing any of the things Fae claims and anyone who believes so is gullible and naive. DefendEachOther requires us as a community to stand in defense of users who are unfairly attacked. Jcb has been attacked and mocked by Fae, by Josve05a and by yourself Nick, and you have the nerve to lecture me on how grown men should behave.

Neither you nor Fae have anything factually negative to say about my longer posts above. It is clear that Jcb and Fae are being stubborn and difficult with each other, but also that Fae is the one who needs to stop with the insults and move this on with a valid DR. Now, Nick, do you have anything actually useful to contribute to this AN? Or are you just going to get suckered into Fae's game to try to censor criticism. -- Colin (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Just interfering. We can't keep those files visible to all even with a DR notice, if there is a reasonable doubt. Better mass delete them and work with the friendly admins to restore safe ones, case by case. Jee 08:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Nemo bis, your attempt to delete an entire sub-head is quite disruptive. Please stop. If you want to police a few PAs, do it. Note that I constructively contributed to this discussion and nobody complained so far. Jee 09:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment What I see in this DR is an attempt to take a safe position considering the uploader and library. We approve courtesy deletions when uploader is in risk. Do it if an admin think so instead of wasting time and energy. Jee 09:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I would appreciate an independent and wise admin to review my two longer comments to this thread and identify anything problematic with it whatsoever. Then look at Fae's two recent posts which are 100% personal attacks with all sorts of unpleasant accusations, defamatory comments, and contains nothing directly relevant to anything posted here. It's just 100% abuse. This is just typical of Fae to go nuclear with attacks when critisised. We saw it with Jcb asking Fae to post a well reasoned DR and Fae responded with a bogus claim that Jcb is now liable for the copyright violations. All our admins should be seriously concerned about such false legal threats. -- Colin (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: I have no idea if you would consider me 'wise', but nothing you have said here was unreasonable... you have instead been a voice of well-reasoned sanity. Revent^talk 09:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to be as sarcastic too (this reply by Revent was sarcasm, right?), I just want to say that the above comments by C. and by F. are - from my understanding - neither really friendly to each other, nor wise... Man, what a surprise! (Yes, this last sentence was sarcasm indeed, but SCNR.) --A.Savin 10:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@A.Savin: A mix of sarcasm and serious... when Colin was talking about anything 'other' than the people involved, he made sense... none of the 'factual' points where unreasonable. It's just the subtext of criticizing the people we know he dislikes that's an issue... but I disregarded it as off-topic...and I'll avoid commenting on the editor. We should talk about how to deal with the images, and keep the personal gripes in other threads that people can just ignore as squabbling. Revent^talk 10:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Revent, is there a policy that requires people only to criticise people they like? Or that once people have had a dispute, they must recuse themselves forever? Once that starts happening, well, we get the situation where people can behave in the most outrageous and abusive manner and nobody does anything about it. Or that people can censor their critics simply by repeated smears. On the AN/U page I was highly critical of Livio and of INC. I wasn't "friendly" as A.Savin seems think is required. And Livio is blocked and INC has apologised and reverted his actions. Our community requires we are all open to criticism, and Fae absolutely cannot demand I be censored. I see no reason anyone can't give reasonable and valid comment, on an open wiki, of any situation and any person they damn well like. Only one person on Commons responds with paragraphs of abusive personal attacks. And you and other admins do nothing about it. Is the subtext that you enjoy seeing abuse written against someone you don't like? You comment on me on a regular basis, mostly disagreeably. Would it be reasonable for me to accuse you of being stalkerish and creepy and hounding and harassing me? I'm quite sure if I called you creepy that you'd block me in an instant. There's some strange double-standards going on here. -- Colin (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: I would not block you for anything unless you went completely off the rails.. I'm clearly 'involved'. People should try to keep specific conversations on specific subjects, though, instead of sidetracking discussions of actual issues into discussions of people... that's a great way of making sure that the conversation turns into an argument where nothing is actually resolved. I ignored the personal drama (if you ignore the subtext of sarcasm)... you are right on your factual points. I don't 'enjoy' seeing any of the squabbling.... I wish people would keep discussions of 'each other' out of the debates about things that are actually important, so that people would stay on-topic. I also know that wish is completely unrealistic. Revent^talk 11:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Well my contribution to this AN was completely on topic. Re-read Fae's opening to this AN. It is partly a statement about incorrectly licensed images but mostly a request for admin response to Jcb for "misuse of admin tools" along with a not completely accurate description of the events. The most troublesome aspect of the attack on Jcb was the claim that Jcb is now somehow liable for Fae's copyright infringement due to Welcome's miscategorisation of licence tags, and the rather bizarre situation where Fae claims to be concerned about copyright violations yet at the same time, in no hurry to remove them. So the "specific subject" here is actually Jcb's actions wrt this DR/block/bots and Fae and other's critical comments on those actions, which seem very bad faith and mocking. I don't appreciate you downplaying this as "squabbling". Fae knows he can divert criticism by making personal attacks and you are playing along with that game by permitting it. My biggest problem with you Revent is the blinkers you wear. There are several paragraphs of the most outrageous personal attacks on this page, and yet you make no comment on Fae whatsoever. Just me. As usual. -- Colin (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello all, WMUK are running the Wikmedian in Residence at Wellcome at the moment (and part of that project is using these images more widely). The uploads were pre-residency but I will contact them re licensing of RAMC images. I generally concur with the view that the CC-BY license is irrevocable, and any conflict is between RAMC and Wellcome really over Wellcome's error. However, in the interests of diplomacy I will put the case for NC-ND being a fairly useless licence for anyone to release images on anyway, and ideally RAMC will see the light. Thanks Stuart Prior (WMUK) (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello. All these files are screenshots from a copyrighted source (2001 TV series), as stated by the user. They should all be removed. --Supernino (talk) 07:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 07:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I hoped it was just a caching issue, but it's been long enough that it does not seem to be: the actions taken after this discussion appear to have been insufficient, because when I request a file be moved, the "Whether a file name is..." text which comes up still uses the misspelling "Taiwaneese" (for "Taiwanese"). Perhaps Translations:Template:File_renaming_reasons/i18n/37/en and Translations:Template:File renaming reasons/i18n/80/en still need to be updated? -sche (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:File renaming reasons/i18n still has to be marked for translation, as mentioned in the original discussion. Matma Rex (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 08:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I am writing here to report very rude and uncivil behaviour by Steinsplitter. This relates to the discussion here: [19]

Steinsplitter brought about a case to have EurovisionNim blocked based on COM:OVERWRITE in August. I believed this block was not based on policy and was trying to discuss this interpretation of COM:OVERWRITE with Steinsplitter.

Each time I did so, they responded in a manner that suggested I stop discussing it and did not address my concerns. I feel that if you are going to use policy as a grounds of blocking someone you must be willing to discuss your behaviour if requested due to the huge consequences for the blocked user. Silencing is simply unacceptable. Users need to be accountable.

I was first accused of incorrectly using the talk page to request an unblock, which is not what I was doing. I was asking about the interpretation of COM:OVERWRITE. This message ended with "i have nothing to add", an attempt to push me away, and had the template added "this section is resolved and can be archived".

This user's next reply was to state "i see no need to discuss this with you here" and re-adding the aforementioned template with the edit summary of "sigh": [20].

I then made my upset about Steinsplitter ignoring me clear. The response was to add back the aforementioned template for a third time with the edit summary "i have nothing to add": [21].

By this time I was clearly very frustrated with the rudeness and incivility. So I said to Steinsplitter that they had "not once backed up assertion that Nim violated COM:OVERWRITE with the contents of the page itself. You have continued to state he broke the guideline ad infinitum with backing this up. How did he violate the guideline? Under which criterion? Every time I demonstrated a clause supports Nim's behaviour you ignored this in each of your subsequent replies. Instead, you resorted to pushing me away. These two actions suggest that your assertion is not backed up by policy."

Rather than addressing my concerns at hand, Steinsplitter reverted my comment: [22].

This behaviour is nothing short of unacceptable. It should not be tolerated at Commons. If a user is not willing to discuss their behaviour they shouldn't engage in actions that have huge consequences for others. Where is the accountability? OSX (talk • contributions) 09:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Steinsplitter has directed you to previous discussions concerning the level of cropping that is and isn't acceptable, I don't know what more Steinsplitter could do.

I would certainly categorise EurovisionNim's cropping as unacceptable under the OVERWRITE policy and would block as per A.Savin.

The impression I get from reading the enormous complaint above, is that you're unhappy Steinsplitter is not agreeing with your interpretation of the policy, looking through the discussion on Steinsplitter's talk page, you seem equally displeased Jkadavor has disagreed with you too.

I really don't understand how such a small matter can be permitted to get so out of control, the sensible option to resolve this entire situation is for EurovisionNim to upload his cropped images under a suitable new name (File.Filename.jpg with the crop at File.Filename.crop.jpg) and then our re-users within Wikimedia and elsewhere can choose easily which file they want to use, rather than have to figure out how to download overwritten images. That's the easy and simple way to resolve future issues.

Finally, I don't think there's any case to answer that Steinsplitter has been uncivil at any time, quite the opposite, I think he has been restrained in the face of persistent combative behaviour from OSX. Nick (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The reason why I'm unhappy is not because Steinsplitter disagrees with me, but because they have not addressed my concern. I mentioned that Commons:Overwriting existing files#Substantial crop or un-crop specifically states "File:Miyasaka Hakuryu II - Tigress with Two Cubs - Walters 71909.jpg is an image of a museum object on a grey background; cropping much closer to the object was considered a minor crop." The car photos (e.g. File:BYD F0 in Vientiane Laos.jpg) are no different, it is simply trimming away the background which does not add value or information to the main subject which is the car. The background is incidental and is not necessary to correctly interpret the illustration.

This is what the source of my concern is about and Steinsplitter has made absolutely zero attempt to discuss this with me. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Nick on this one. And regarding File:BYD F0 in Vientiane Laos.jpg. The crop is to tight for my taste. I would rather use the original if I was writing an article about cars. Natuur12 (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

OSX, Steinsplitter is not a native English speaker, he may have difficulty to explain more. I too not a native English speaker; but had explained it you with clear Wikipedia page. But you are not willing to listen ("I and many others disagree. Matters of aesthetics are open to personal preference."). The discussion was not here or in my talk; otherwise I would have replied: "Indeed; then why are overwriting other works based on your personal preference?" Note that here there are lot of editors and most of them have their own personal preferences. What will be the fate of a file when everybody start to impose their own personal preferences? That's why we have Commons:Overwriting_existing_files#Respect_content_creators.

It seems you still don't understand how your example different from the car. There are so many such photographic concepts are there as it is an art. If you have more doubts, come to Commons:Photography critiques. Jee 11:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I do understand the frustration of OSX. On Steinsplitters user talk page OSX is merely trying to engage in a dialogue referring to the overwrite policy and the kinds of crops that are acceptable. It is evident that OSX has tried to read and understand the policy, but has not been able to understand why the crops were a violation of the policy as perceived by several editors here. If a user does not understand a policy even when the user tries to, iis it then the user or the policy which is at fault.? The crop in the example in the policy is a significant change in the crop concerning image dimensions, which is acceptable as the main subject. The policy writes that "cropping much closer to the subject" is acceptable in this case. This could be seen as an encouragement of making very tight crops. There are other examples of crops, which cuts aways significant objects and are given as examples of when a new file name is to be used. The crops of the cars that have been applied, do not change the image dimensions very much, but the crops are indeed very tight leaving only a little lead room, but is is not explicitly explained in the policy that reasonable lead room should be retained. If you are an experienced image editor, you will know that, but I think it is understandable that for some editors this is not a sufficiently clear guideline. And OSX is merely trying to engage with Steinsplitter to get clarification on the policy. Steinsplitter completely dismisses this request and i do agree does so in an unnecessarily rude manner. It represents an attitude against less experienced editors, which is very efficient in driving potential new productive users away. Please show kindness, and empathy in your interactions instead, and consider if the policy should be clarified on this point. I too think the car crops ended up being too tight, but it appears for me to have been done in good faith as it is not clear from policy that tight crops are discouraged; on the contrary the crop example states that "cropping much closer to the subject" is acceptable. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry if he believes that i acted uncivil, however: IMHO the guideline leaves no room for inconsistent interpretations. A number on similar AN/U complains which can be found in the respective archive are confirming that such crops are not okay, therefore i see no need to discuss this again and again. Controversial crops are not allowed, the user can upload the crop under a new filename, then Wikipedia (or other wikis) can decide which file they want to use. I also want to note that OSX was asked by his, currently blocked, friend to help him at enwiki (imho this fact explains a lot). Of course i could report him here for being rude to me, but i am not a fan of drama & wars. And to avoid misunderstanding: I am not the blocking admin, thought i believe that the block is fully justified. OSX is a experienced users, he know how. He was blocked by Jcb in 16 July 2016 for Disruptive editing after warnings. Best :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment Considering how often complaints about overwriting files comes up, and that realistically there are bugger all cases where it's actually needed, why can autoconfirmed users perform a file overwrite? Removing file overwrite from the rights group of "Autoconfirmed users" would save a lot of headaches like this. User group "Users" has the right "(reupload-own)" so all users would still be able to overwrite their own files, while "Confirmed users" already has the user right "(reupload)", so that could be granted to users who need to overwrite files (I know that's not quite the point of the user group Confirmed users, but in lieu of making a new user group, it would act as a decent surrogate). ColonialGrid (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment It's a very simple rule of thumb, any overwrite of any kind when challenged must be considered controversial. When an overwrite is controversial, the uploader must create a new file and leave the original as is, regardless of how different people interpret what a significant or trivial change might be. No need for lengthy debates, community consensus processes, or new guidelines on what are trivial crops, trivial colour changes, improvements, corrections, close crops etc. It is precisely because of a history of these types of precious volunteer time-wasting angry debates and the temptation of revert-wars that I created SignificantReverts. --Fæ (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

How can I add several writer's names who are published in the state of Texas? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2605:6001:E490:F00:7506:90D2:B1E4:9103 (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This is Wikimedia Commons, the central place where all free images are stored. To write an article, you have to go to a language version of Wikipedia, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org for English articles. To get started, this tutorial may be helpful: en:Wikipedia:Tutorial - Jcb (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Please note also that the "Writers from somewhere" categories refer to the authors' origin and not to where their works were published. However, if you want to add images of writers to this category on Commons, you'll have to place a text string [[Category:Writers from Texas]] at the bottom of each file page. De728631 (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This file has been added to an article but can not be seen. In edit page you can see the picture when you save it is only an empty box with ? mark in the middle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gharouni (talk • contribs) 09:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Where has it been added ? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 10:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

All of the files uploaded by User Rafaraj appear to be blatant copyright violations claimed as "own work".--Ponyo (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Uploads nuked, user warned. INeverCry 22:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there some reason there's a five year backlog on CfD? MSJapan (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

There are processes with backlogs up to 10 years. I don't know the reason for the not-being-present of sufficient manpower. Jcb (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

There needs some brainstorming for improving this system, a list for suggestions. There is also a lack in technical support for closing and resolving (I had only begun a script). ↔ User: Perhelion 22:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I think another issue with CFD is that it's not a focus of admins the way DR/CSD is. The majority of CFDs require merging, redirecting, renaming, etc, but not deletion. It's a bit harder for a non-admin to close a CFD, and admins are focused on copyvios/socks/vandalism and don't have time to close CFDs which are often complex. I wish we had a "closer" right here on Commons as they do on the Russian Wikipedia; regular editors might feel more empowered to close CFD discussions. The other issue I see is what Jcb points out, which is lack of active editors in CFD and other maintenance areas. Our admin count is steadily dropping too; when I became an admin in 2012, I was the 272nd admin on the list - now we have 240 or so, with only 30 or so doing more than 100 log actions per month. We have the same issue with license review: only a small number of active reviewers. If you want to see a serious backlog, look at Category:Media needing categories, where we have roughly 500,000 uncategorized images, some uploaded as far back as 2011... INeverCry 22:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the process is not well known among many regular editors who might give their opinions on the individual discussions. What's also not well known by some is the various speedy options (for example, categories that are misnamed, duplicate, or empty) that can reduce the volume of cfds. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, at least I got an answer, and maybe a work target in that uncatted files link. MSJapan (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

In the previous discussion about the previous closure of this DR, the consensus was that Fae should first filter out all obvious PD files, before starting a DR again. However, Fae started a new DR, with all 923 files still in Category:Wellcome DR request for RAMC, among them probably hundreds of PD files. Also his nomination text is mainly a personal attack, rather than a deletion rationale. Could somebody deal with this situation? Jcb (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The archive is here. The consensus that Jcb claims above, "to filter out obvious PD files", before creating a DR does not exist.

This is for very good reason, as I have "filtered" files currently marked in the DR as keeps because they are PD and the "obvious" keeps have probably been assessed already, leaving the "less than obvious". The remaining 921 files require formal assessment and consensus, not my off the record personal views about copyright, which is the point of the DR.

Jcb put me in a difficult position with the Wellcome, and refused to reconsider the dubious close of the DR. Instead Jcb told me to raise a new DR with an amended rationale. This is precisely what I have done.

Jcb's actions were recognized by others in the last discussion as "completely bogus" and the idea that what was in the EXIF is more important than what the Wellcome has to say now, was also condemned. It would be jolly nice if Jcb could put aside the big stick, and let the community peacefully get on with resolving the DR and the Wellcome's concerns without turning it into a personal argument or blocking accounts for attempting resolution.

As was raised in the DR earlier today, I have emailed WMF legal to see if they wish to share an opinion or talk to the Wellcome Library themselves.

Update I've been told by personal email that WMF staff are having a meeting about this case later today. --Fæ (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Further update, I have received an email this evening with a perspective from Jacob in WMF Legal. At the moment the Wellcome are having their own internal discussions. Should the Wellcome want to discuss alternatives beyond the DR, then the good news is that WMF staff can assist as well as myself as a long term volunteer. In the meantime it would be great if the DR were left to run its course, rather than another preemptive closure, before a solid community consensus establishes the most appropriate action. --Fæ (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Can some German-speaking administrator please warn NeverDoING to be careful while creating non-topical categories with names opposites as stated in our naming system? In few minutes I stumbled into Categories by province of the Philippines, Politics by city in Ireland, Categories by state of Malaysia, Categories by province of Costa Rica, Categories by province of Belgium. Categories by state of Mexico to name some, and for much of them the appropriate category already existed. In the past I had problems in communicating with them, partly due to the absence of a common language, so I would like that a German-language admin invites him to carefulness because one wouldn't want to patrol all his contributions. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 13:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

NeverDoING is well known for carelessly producing lots of mess in categories. It is quite useless to write them anything on their talk page (no matter if in English or German), as they never respond. Here is one example amongst many: [23]. At some timepoint, enough was enough, as they also created nonesense categories, and I blocked them for 2 weeks, however the block later was reverted by Hedwig in Washington. Since then, I really don't know what to do with this user, as I got the feeling they have some kind of administrative lobby (for whatever reason). --A.Savin 14:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Then correct the cats on enwiki please! See on enwiki for example: Categories by province of Belgium--NeverDoING (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

NeverDoING: This.is.not.English.Wikipedia. This is Wikimedia Commons. Is clear enough? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 16:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't just make sense and helpful be applied to recruit many helpers, if in enwiki and commons two completely different schemas.--NeverDoING (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not an argument. Here are different naming rules than on en.wiki (which naming system is, imho, very questionable anyway). Thus in order to cooperate on Commons you must reset and blank all what you learnt on en.wiki. Neither you and I are native English speakers so it must not be difficult. We don't need people who simply copies and pastes category names from en.wiki but adhere to the naming system adopted on Commons. What en.wiki does are their own business. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 21:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@NeverDoING: Ich muss auch sagen, die Kategorien die Sergio angesprochen hat sind schon richtig schlecht angelegt und ohne Sinn. Kannst Du Dich in Zukunft an unsere Vereinbarungen wie Kategorien auf Commons angelegt werden halten und den enwiki-Mist einfach vergessen? Die haben das Rad naemlich auch nicht erfunden. OK? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, could an admin check if this is the same IP who vandalized TimedText:Mars.ogv.en.srt? --jdx ^Re: 13:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

No, it's completely different as that had been from the 209.232.144.0/20 range. --Achim (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --jdx ^Re: 16:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Please delete, this is an over-categorization. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Taivo (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone! This is just to let you know that the admin inactivity run for August-September 2016 has ended earlier today. @MGA73 has resigned his access due to lack of time during the course of the run, and three other administrators—@Avenue, @EPO and @Niklem—have had their admin privileges removed on Meta as a result of their inactivity. I already thanked each and every one of these users on their talk pages, but please join me here in thanking them for their involvement as admins and for their excellent service to our community over so many years. Thank you all, and here's to hope we'll see you active again soon! odder (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear @odder, please see my talk page, last section. --Niklem (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

File:ROC Agency of Corrections Logo.jpg are linked to 14 articles, and now its SVG format, File:ROC Agency of Corrections Emblem.svg, is uploaded. Could any admin help me to revise those mentioned articles' linked image from JPG to SVG by a bot? Thanks a lot.--Akira123 (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done using Commons:GlobalReplace. INeverCry 03:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The older version of File:ROC National Immigration Agency Seal.svg was renamed to File:ROC National Immigration Agency Seal (2007-2015).svg and the page became a redirect link. I tried to upload the present version of the seal, but the system rejected because the file is existing. Could any admin help to delete the current page of File:ROC National Immigration Agency Seal.svg? Or should I remove the redirect link then nominate a speedy deletion? Thanks a lot. --Akira123 (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

We don't delete images just because the subject has become obsolete. After all there may still be occasions where the older version would be useful. Have you already tried to upload the new version under another name like File:ROC National Immigration Agency Seal 2016.svg? We can then give the redirect a new target. De728631 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. In this case, I ask to delete the subject not because it became obsolete. On the contrary, I'm trying to update it because the older version got a new name. Why can't we upload it directly to avoid a new redirect, since I can upload it under another name then request to redirect it to the subject?--Akira123 (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Please upload new version just on top of old version, use the same filename when uploading. Taivo (talk) 06:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I see this a lot and wanted to get confirmation. People upload a pic to Commons from Flickr that was originally on a USGov site and label it CC license because that is what Flickr had, but the license is clearly PD-USGov or some variation thereof. Flickr review bot marks the image as verified CC. See File:Traffic Jam in Denali.jpg as an example. Aren't these images really PD-USGov (in this case NPS for National Park Service) and should the license be changed? PumpkinSky talk 14:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. But add new source along with the old one. --Fæ (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Time zones of Europe.svg requires updating as Turkey and Northern Cyprus have dropped DST. It was previously protected due to a dispute in different version however, I believe the issue should be settled now. Can someone unprotect the file so that it can be updated? Thanks. --Turnless (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sealle: Since this is your protection, I think it's appropriate to ping you to get your opinion on lifting the protection. I would support lifting it with the understanding that if any of the edit-warring is repeated, whoever does it gets blocked. INeverCry 00:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know.  Downgraded to semi-protection for now. Sealle (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sealle: , for some reason I still can't update the file. --Turnless (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Turnless: Upload protection was left at full. I've removed it (there's actually no semi-protection for uploading - only autoconfirmed users can overwrite a file they didn't upload). You can update the file now. INeverCry 21:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Please check these images.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I've nominated most for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Marceniuk. Ww2censor (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Apologies if there is a better place to request this - I could not find it. Could an administrator send this message out to the editors listed here via the mass-message tool? Let me know if there are any concerns. Thank you! ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Message, which includes the header, signature, and timestamp: {{subst:Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in the United States/Messages/Thanks}} ~~~~~ ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

File is used in Mediawiki namespace in multiple wikis and should have full protection. --Denniss (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The "move" and "upload" functions are already fully protected (sysop). Only the description can be edited by anyone, so I think we can leave it at that. Do you think we should set the "edit" function to autoconfirmed? De728631 (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

File should not be editable by anyone except sysops, that's why i fully protected it years ago. The release to edit for anyone was plain wrong, the minimum it needs is semi edit protection. --Denniss (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 22:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi there,

for File:InnoTrans 2016 – SouthWest Trains Class 707 interior.jpg ‎and File:InnoTrans 2016 – SouthWest Trains Class 707 (29818504695).jpg, the flickr user originaly uploaded under Public Domain Mark, but upon my request has changed it to CC0 so it can be used in Wikimedia Commons. Could an admin change the tag below as appropriate as it no longer applies.

"This image was originally posted to Flickr by – FelixM – at https://flickr.com/photos/91875255@N05/29705440002. It was reviewed on 2016-09-22 20:51:06 by the automated bot FlickreviewR and was confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the Public Domain Mark. However, manual review is required to verify the file is indeed Public Domain in the source country and in the US. If you are an administrator or a trusted user, you can review the image and remove the tag."

Thanks, Jcc (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 22:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Could an admin revert the file to the first version? Abuse filter doesn't let me to do this. --jdx ^Re: 20:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is only one version. --JuTa 21:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I meant to revert these two edits. --jdx ^Re: 21:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Taivo (talk) 06:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The subject of File:ROC National Immigration Agency Seal.svg is a redirect link to the old version, and I uploaded the current version of the seal as File:ROC National Immigration Agency Seal (2015-).svg. Could any admin or file-mover help me to move File:ROC National Immigration Agency Seal (2015-).svg to File:ROC National Immigration Agency Seal.svg? Thanks a lot.--Akira123 (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 06:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to delete the subject of File:ROC National Immigration Agency Seal (2015-).svg? Thank you very much.--Akira123 (talk) 07:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 07:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This is the worst case of revenge editing I have ever encountered in Commons personally. User Dd1495 (talk · contributions · Statistics) has filed his Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nowy Targ 1940 - Dom Niemiecki (German Stationhouse).jpg with no understanding of Polish copyright law and the apparent ignorance of – or perhaps just not bothering to check – the provided reliable source. After receiving negative feedback, User:Dd1495 strikes back by nominating 14 of my files from the same source and other Polish souces while using identical one-liner (repeated word-for-word) as his reason (quote): There is no way to assert the pictures were taken by Polish photographers or first published in Poland. The main source of these old historic photographs is the Polish National Digital Archives NAC (Narodowe Archiwum Cyfrowe) which is a governmental agency similar to German Bundesarchiv. Each photograph made available by NAC has a document attached to it with full description of the image provenance. Selected other sources include major Polish NGO portals. Here is the list of my files nominated by User:Dd1495 in a single sweep, mere minutes apart from each other.

• 09:33, 25 September 2016‎ Dd1495 ([[:File:Spotkanie Sojuszników.jpg)
• 09:32, 25 September 2016‎ Dd1495 (File:Sambor, Kresy, September 1939; German & Russian soldiers stroll.jpg)
• 09:31, 25 September 2016‎ Dd1495 (File:Sambor - Jewish Blich c.1939.jpg)
• 09:28, 25 September 2016‎ Dd1495 (File:Alojzy & Feliks Plewa with Ruth (rescued) 1942.jpg)
• 09:14, 25 September 2016‎ Dd1495 (File:Ukrainian Shuma 1942.jpg)
• 09:11, 25 September 2016‎ Dd1495 (File:Lviv pogrom (June - July 1941).jpg)
• 09:08, 25 September 2016‎ Dd1495 (File:Warzok, Katzmann, Himmler at Janowska, occupied Poland.jpg)
• 09:06, 25 September 2016‎ Dd1495 (File:Belzec - SS staff (1942).jpg)
• 09:06, 25 September 2016‎ Dd1495 (File:Belarusian Auxiliary Police with Astrouski.jpg)
• 09:00, 25 September 2016‎ Dd1495 (File:Bydgoszcz-rozstrzelanie zakładników 9.09.1939.jpg)
• 08:51, 25 September 2016‎ Dd1495 (File:Bruno Muller (SS-Obersturmbannfuhrer).jpg)
• 08:45, 25 September 2016‎ Dd1495 (File:NAC 2-4546 Sonderdienst company overview in Krakow 1943.jpg)
• 08:34, 25 September 2016‎ Dd1495 (File:Hans Frank (right) Herbert Becker (middle) Ernst Boepple (left) & Sonderdienst.jpg)
• 08:31, 25 September 2016‎ Dd1495 (File:PIC 2-4543 Hans Frank i liderzy Sonderdienstu.jpg)
• 07:51, 25 September 2016‎ Dd1495 (File:Nowy Targ 1940 - Dom Niemiecki (German Stationhouse).jpg)

Would you please roll back his nominations to save us all some precious time, because his nominations are submitted in bad faith, which is glaringly obvious. And also, they constitute disruptive editing which is actionable on the administrative level in my opinion. Thank you, Poeticbent talk 15:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Addendum. I just noticed, User:Dd1495 might be using a bot, because the number of old PD-Polish images nominated by him seconds apart from each other is staggering! Poeticbent talk 16:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem with this user is that s/he reacts in that way as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dd1495. It's his/her usual approach as s/he did exactly the same after February 2015's deletion request (see here). As he's nomitated more than one hundred pictures, I'd like to ask an administrator to revert him/her and asked him/her not to keep on his/her disruptive behavior. --Discasto _talk 21:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

 Agree I just run into Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lviv 1939 Sov Cavalry.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kombatanci niemieccy składają hołd J. Piłsudskiemu (1939).jpg and see no basis for their DR. I would also suggest to speedy keep all his/her DR's. There are 229 of them on Commons:Deletion requests/2016/09/25 --Jarekt (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done I've closed them all as keep. INeverCry 08:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• File:Vista Doble (1509234773).jpg does show thumb in file history but most other links give error (file not found)
• File:Bromelia_(1144132667).jpg - first image completely disappered, overwritten by me from original source but thumbs barely show. On upload it was identified as duplicate of the image I tried to overwrite so it must still be somewhere. --Denniss (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Denniss: Thanks for reporting this, I filed it in Phabricator as phab:T147040. Matma Rex (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Just spotted these uploads which look like a straightforward COPYVIO. Nev1 (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Nuked --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hola, podrían revisar (y sí es el caso borrarlas) todas imágenes del usuario Karpian13, varias parecen sacadas de otros sitios. Les agradeceré, Saludos. -- Elreysintrono (Su majestad) 20:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

¿Es correcto que esté esta imagen en Commons. ¿Qué hacer con ella? --Jcfidy (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

No veo ningún problema así a priori. ¿Por qué te inquieta esta imagen? Se usa para poder enlazar a un articulo de wikipedia desde "el mundo real". --Discasto _talk 16:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Solo pregunto si debe existir o no en Commons, no es habitual tener imágenes en código QR para enlazar artículos de Wikipedia. A ver que opinan otros usuarios. --Jcfidy (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Claro que pueden existir. De hecho, existen muchas :-) (véase Category:QRpedia QR codes) --Discasto _talk 17:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, no conocía esa categoría. He mirado alguna de esas imágenes y solo están en esa categoría, la elimino de categoría "Hórreos in Galicia (Spain)". --Jcfidy (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

See Commons:Picswiss/Permission and this DR. As far as I understand the German text, this seems to be an 'Wikipedia only' permission. Any thoughts? Jcb (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

No, the restriction is that only pictures by Zumbühl may be used on Wikipedia, not pictures by other fotographers on picswiss. --Magnus (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not satisfied with this answer. A quotation from the release: "mag wenige Leute begeistern, diese Bilder zu klauen und kommerziell zu vertreiben" --> He does not think that people want to steal these files to use them commercially. If he would agree with the free license, he would not call commercial usage 'klauen'. So please tell me whether this German sentence needs to be explained completely different? Because as far as I understand the text, the release is incompatible. Jcb (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the permission is invalid. There are two options: a) we get a valid permission from the copyright holder as described at COM:OTRS b) We have to delete all files. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's see what Roland Zumbuehl has to say to this, see also his talk page. He is uploading lots of freely licensed (CC-BY-SA) photos himself. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

If Jcb and Steinsplitter are right, we cannot call this anything but a massive disaster. 10+ years of copyright violations without anyone noticing them and 5330 files widely used in Wikipedias AND ELSEWHERE, everything based on a misanderstanding. --Cavarrone (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that Roland Zumbuehl is fine with the free licenses - why would he otherwise continuously upload CC-BY-SA licensed photos to Commons? 2004 was quite a different time, we weren't that formal with our licensing confirmation requirements back then. And I think we usually "grandfather" images uploaded before OTRS confirmation became standard practice? Still, a confirmation through OTRS would be a good thing now. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I realize this probably isn't correct place to ask this however as admins frequently watch this page I figured I'd ask here,
Ultra7 hasn't been on since August 2015 and seems to have retired from this place, They have thousands of images stored up and they're pretty much abandoned,
So I was going to ask if It would be okay if I moved every single image to Category:Davey2010 buses and sorted them out myself,
I realize I have tons of images to sort out myself as it is however I'd rather take these under my wing instead of them being left abandoned (which I'm more than happy to do),
I perhaps don't need to ask here however I'd rather get consensus before doing it incase there wasn't any agreement,
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Ultra7's tmp categories are clearly designed to be temporary pending proper classification, so if you work through them and categorise the files and remove his tmp category when you are done that is fine.

However, you shouldn't remove any of his temp categories to merely replace it with your own. You don't need to "take ownership" to work through those categories, and if he does return then his temp cats should be left as-is for him.

Feel free to add your own temporary category to the files if it makes it easier for you to process, but if you do that remember to remove both your cat and his when the file is categorised.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nilfanion, I'm not trying to argue but the user hasn't been on since August last year and it seems extremely unlikely he will ever be on,

For whatever reason most of the images in those cats aren't even under "uncategorized" - They've just sat there since June 2015 (or longer) and there's no categories at all except his temp ones,

I never realized he had other images there but I only wanted to categorize the buses/cars and it'd be easier if I moved the relevant images from his category to mine so then they're all in one place instead of me having to go from one category to another to another,

In all fairness he doesn't need 65 categories tho ?, I could always keep the main cat and about 5 temps and have the rest (i'm working on) deleted, OR I could paste the entire cat list on his talkpage so if he ever wanted them undeleted he could OR if it's really preferred to keep them then I could add "Template:empty category" to them which means they wouldn't be deleted,

I'm not really trying to take ownership however he does appear to have abandoned them and I don't think he's ever coming back so it makes sense for me to "grab the bull by the horns" if you like,

Thanks for replying - it's much appreciated. –Davey2010^Talk 22:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree its unlikely he will return, but he might, and in that case everything should be as he left it - who knows what distinctions the separate cats have to him? I don't see any benefit to moving these to a temp cat in your name, as you can work just as easily with the existing categories. If using a temporary category of your own makes things easier, please copy the files (and leave them in the existing cats). Only remove his temp categories when you have applied actual content categories.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Nilfanion - That makes no sense ? ... You're telling me to leave the files in his cats and yet you're telling me to copy the files only and then to remove both cats when I've categorized the image .... What's the difference then between moving them to my cat to sort and doing it in his as either way I'll be removing his cats after anyway? ... That makes no sense ?,

Also If I remove his cats from the images once I'm done it means these cats are going to automatically be deleted because their blank ? .... Which is why I was more than happy to move them and add "empty category" template to the categories, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

What I'm saying is don't remove these files from "his" temporary cats until you have properly categorised the files. How you go about categorising - whether directly from those categories or via a temp cat of your own - is irrelevant, but the files should remain in "his" categories until they have real categories. With thousands of files that will take you some time, and its possible he will return in that time.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Nilfanion - Ahhhh right sorry, Well in that case someone else can deal with his shit as with the greatest of respect (and I'm not having a go at you) but I'm not going through atleast 30-40 categories - I had hoped you'd agree but anyway they'll just have to stay abandoned, Thanks for your time anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 01:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Category:Royal and vice-regal standards of Canada
• Category:Flags of Canadian Lieutenant-Governors
• Category:Vice-regal Crests of Canada

Could an admin kindly delete the following categories? They are empty. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 23:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Please move Commons talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ken Hirai In the Center of the World to Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ken Hirai In the Center of the World. Thanks. Regards, 153.207.6.74 21:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

•  Done I have also listed your case at the main RFCU page Commons:Requests for checkuser. De728631 (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Scheck 1.2 Mio. EUR.jpg has been uploaded by myself but with my address (overwrite). Please delete that second version due to personality rights.  Thank you. --Mattes (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Ping Mattes: Deleted both old versions, and would caution that your bank routing number is still visible on the current version. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Alright, that's great. The acct. no.s are fictional as well as the issuing bank. Just an appetizer to attend a lottery. Greetings from Munich and best wishes, --Mattes (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Before I do a MDR on 1000+ files, I would like to hear your opinion on Category:Austrian_Airlines_Smile_Maker (I moved all relevant images to that category to structure the topic): anonymous but identifiable people, photos taken by an airline. It is just like private party photos. I'm not sure if that is a case of Commons:Deletion_policy#Photographs_of_identifiable_people, but the encyclopaedic value of those images is also quite limited. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Clearly out of scope. --A.Savin 09:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I nominated all of them to deletion. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

So did I :-( --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello- First, please let me know if I'm not posting in the right place. Regarding Special:Contributions/Каволо: At least some of these images look to be harvested from websites that do not give attribution to the works. The user has been uploading them and changing the portraits of medieval figures on many wiki articles to them. I have the sense that something's not quite right, but am not sure how to proceed. I asked the user for source info on one of the images. Thanks in advance for any help. --Eric ^{my en.wp talk page} 18:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Quick note: I agree with Eric's concerns if these are not clearly attributed, but at least the bulk of them look clearly old and almost certainly PD, so the issue is probably to get clarity about provenance, not to get rid of the images. - Jmabel ! talk 19:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @Jmabel: . I agree re provenance. A couple of the works look like modern collages to me, but I'm certainly no expert and cannot claim they're not old. Then there's at least one where the user has apparently done a close crop and adjustment of an image of another work, then uploaded it as his/her own work. That might be somehow legit, but I thought I'd bring it to others' attention. --Eric ^{my en.wp talk page} 19:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyone else? Magog the Ogre, maybe? --Eric ^{my en.wp talk page} 12:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

MerlinsMagic is not getting the messasge about uploading copy vio's Mlpearc (open channel) 15:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I checked the last three images mentioned on his talk page. Each file has a copyright disclaimer in the metadata that reads: "Released publicly with Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike. Photo by Eisenthesky Productions. May be freely used for any educational purposes." That looks like a valid permission to me. De728631 (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

[24] from [25] 80.132.70.88 15:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. Thank you for notifying us, but next time you may simply put a tag {{copyvio | <your reason here> }} directly on the file page. De728631 (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I've incorrectly received several notifications of deletion requests recently, namely:

• [26], File:Bypassduct.gif, notification from @KDS4444:
• [27], File:30th Infantry Division SSI.svg, notificaton from @Jcb:
• [28], File:Zaz-diagram.jpg, notification from @Ellin Beltz:

Notifications should have been sent to the original uploaders of these files, probably on their enwp talk pages. I think I was involved in the move from enwp to commons for all of these files, but that doesn't mean that I should be receiving these notifications. Looking at the history, it seems that metadata was incorrectly removed by @OgreBot 2: (operated by @Magog the Ogre: ) in 2015, which may be the root cause of this problem. Since the notifications have come from three different users, it's probably not just users incorrectly sending the notifications independently, so it's either down to the bot edits, or a standard tool used by all three editors. (Or the upload link: but the latter two were uploaded using my account directly, while the first was through @Magnus Manske: 's @File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske): , so that's not a constant factor here).

Deleting the files without correctly notifying the uploader seems wrong to me (I've fixed the second, objected to the third, and the first is still pending), but this may need a more fundamental/systematic fix, as I'm sure I'm not the only one to be incorrectly receiving these notifications... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The notification is done by the standard 'Quick delete' gadget. Not sure who is in charge of fixing possible errors in that tool. Jcb (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I had marked the File:Bypassduct.gif as missing source information by adding the tag {{No source}} to the file's information. I did not perform a notification-- this must have been done in connection with action take by the template itself or with a bot that monitors that template. I have now notified the original uploader manually. KDS4444 (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

My bot has nothing to do with this. The tool only cares about the Commons uploader (or, if File Upload Bot, then the authorizing user). This is by design; many Commons uploaders want to know if a file they transferred is up for deletion. And it's too hard and unreliable to contact the original uploader at the original wiki. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: In my earlier note I was referring to the modifications by your bot to the page, which seemed to have removed useful information about where the images came from. Do you also operate the deletion notifications tool as well? If so, I think it's useful to receive notifications as the person that transferred the file to Commons, but it's *essential* that the original uploader also gets notified. That should be trivial, at least for files that were transferred by the File Upload Bot, where the the original upload log is also copied over in a standard (and hence parsable) way. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Mike that the current process is not healthy, considering the project goals and the importance of both retaining public domain images and making reasonable effort to determine any potential copyright claim. It is a consequence of the current weak process that this year has seen a lot of contentious and disputed "no source" 7-day deletions for very old transferred images, some of which may have been avoided with better notifications. A courteous note to the original uploader could be extremely helpful, as this gives them, or their local talk page watchers, a better opportunity to identify a source or add more explanation as to copyright status. I disagree with the Ogre. The work-flow is easy to understand: a bot script can filter deletions based on which files are cross-wiki transfers, examine the image page first version at the time of upload and pull out the name of the original uploader; it's then a doddle to notify the most recent Commons uploader and the sister project uploader, or provide these as notification choices to the nominator. With a small bit of artificial intelligence, a bot can even process notifications differently if the original uploader is still active on Commons, blocked, long-term inactive or marked as retired. If we are critically short of bot writers for this type of improvement, I suggest adding it to Phabricator and seeing if it could be added to the next Summer of Code type project list. --Fæ (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

KDS4444, why did you add the "no source" tag when there is a source given in the "Original upload log" section. The link doesn't work any more, but that's a different problem. I'm confused why the "Original upload log" shows a description with source and yet the current description lacks this. Did the "orphan bot" remove some essential information? The Burbank user account doesn't seem valid any longer, so notifications aren't really the issue with that image. The third image was uploaded by an account that is now blocked, so again, notifications wouldn't have helped there. KDS4444, I think you need to consider adding that template is similar to adding a DR in that a notification is generated on your behalf.

Better notifications would help a bit, but I think that assuming the uploader will be notified might possibly result in even less effort to identify a source prior to tagging. Do we have a policy on the use of {{No source}}? Such as that it should not be applied without making some effort to locate the source? -- Colin (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, the bot should have transferred the "transferred from... by User:... using ..." to the original upload section, but it did not. The original thought in the bot was this is not in fact the original source. And that is correct. That's because the original source wasn't on the description page on the local project or because the bot is poorly configured to handle some smaller projects (e.g., ar.wikipedia). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Is this fixed in the current version of the bot? The moving of the statement to the upload statement makes sense if the actual source of the file wasn't given. But the question about notification of the original uploader remains... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I want this filed moved to File:Malvern Hills College.jpg because the school has changed its nam. I realise that I perhaps don't have file mover rights on on Commons but having my reqyest rejected with a ridiculous aito meesae: 'BE HONEST, YOU ARE NOT THE PRIGIBAL UPLOADER' is plain affrontry. Of course I am. I too the photo. Before I lose my hair, cold you please:

• Move the file for me
• Report a bug to Phabricatore to get that really stupid message changed.

Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

 Comment The message being objected to is in MediaWiki:RenameRequest.js, not the software. It's a gadget written by Rillke, and the issue can be avoided by simply adding {{Rename}} manually.

On a personal note (and this is not a personal attack, but an observation) please don't edit when drunk. Thanks. Revent^talk 20:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

What does one have to do to get this message? I added {{Rename |1=Newfilenameexample.jpg |2=1}} to the file and previewed it, and I didn't get any such message. I see your bit about adding the template manually, but how else can it be added? Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

You'd have to use the Java Script thingy Revent mentioned above. When you click the link, you can see the code with this message translated to a number of languages. I didn't bother to check though what really triggers its display. De728631 (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: You have to 'not' be a file mover (or an admin, ofc) and try to use "At the original uploader’s request" as a rationale for the move (in the gadget) when you were not the editor who originally uploaded the file to Commons... this file was transferred from enwiki by someone else. Revent^talk 15:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, okay, so it's a gadget. I indeed misunderstood. Nyttend (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

IMO pismo.zarplatt.ru should be added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist for edits like this: File talk:28-Russian alphabet-ъ.svg. I have seen it at least two times. --jdx ^Re: 00:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Another one: Category talk:Sauber C33 --jdx ^Re: 00:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done lNeverCry 01:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@INeverCry: I think that more sophisticated regexp is needed in order to match host names like pismo.zarplatt(точка)ru used in Category talk:C-27J Spartan. BTW. Russian точка means dot. --jdx ^Re: 07:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This may be of interest. I've blocked the IP for a while, but sophistication is beyond me. lNeverCry 07:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I've had issues with the spam-blacklist not working too - is this still occurring, do we know ? Nick (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@INeverCry: Another host for blacklisting: programma.zarplatt.ru (used in Category talk:Interactive whiteboards). IMO the whole zarplatt.ru domain should be blacklisted, so I suggest replacing existing rule with \bzarplatt\.ru\b. Also you may try to add \bzarplatt\(точка\)ru\b, but I am not sure if it will work. BTW. I have noticed a lot of mistakes in the list, eg. yours \pismo\.zarplatt\.ru\b – I am pretty sure it should be \b at the beginning instead of backslash or no backslash at all. \p has quite different meaning. --jdx ^Re: 07:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I've made the adjustment to the blacklist to \bzarplatt\.ru\b. I've also soft-blocked 5.228.0.0/16 for a couple weeks. lNeverCry 07:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

c:File:Tahmina Akefi.jpg has two versions, the newest one (b/w) was made on request of the subject; she also asked me to make the first one (in colour) unavailable. Therefore I ask you to please delete / hide it. Regards, Alex P. Kok (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done. De728631 (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, related to this case... I don't know what's the exact procedure it should be followed here. User:Hard, after he was unblocked, asked me if his flickr account could be taken out from bad authors list (the ID is 66383702@N06) (User:Ks-M9 told him that list exists). He has told me he won't upload contentious material from that account without an undeletion request (by "contentious" meaning images he's the author of, but had been deleted in the past by deletion request, because of his mistakes). Again, I think he's a sincere guy who can be trusted and that all images uploaded to his flickr account are actually his. Strakhov (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Taivo: who was the blocking administrator in this case. I've looked at the Flickr feed closely and it does look to be legitimate, and would be prepared to remove the Flickr account from the 'bad authors list', but would like a second opinion from the administrator most aware of the case. Nick (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. I forgot, that I added the user into bad Flick users list. I reverted myself. Taivo (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you! Strakhov (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Taivo: @Nick: . Sorry. I misundertood him. It's more complicated than that. He has uploaded there the pics who had verbal agreement to publish and they were deleted, in order to carry out the OTRS permissions from there (OTRS needs a link, doesn't it?). I've asked him to point precisely which pics are his and which of them belong to the Archive of the University of Navarre, in different albums. He is gonna do that. Would that account be acceptable or it would be necessary having two different accounts, one with the personal photos and the other with the Archive's pics, potentially OTRS-able? Anyways (whether his Flickr account returns to bad-good faith-users or not), no photo would be uploaded to Commons from there until everything is fine. I'd keep an eye on that. Strakhov (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the solution would be asking him to publish the Archive photo's in Flickr with all rights reserved, licensing correctly them through OTRS afterwards. Is that OK? Strakhov (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

That would work well. There are also options for collating material using albums and sets, which are options available to Flickr users. Nick (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not so sure the image is PD. It is currently on en wiki as part of the featured article Zapata rail. See Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#United_States. The problem is that we don't know what work it was published in in 1928 or if it was renewed. This definitely isn't PD because of life+70 years, IMHO. PumpkinSky talk 13:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hotlinking search results is notoriously error-prone, but... It was published in The Auk: Ornithological Advances in January-March 1928. Whether that was the first publication or not, I'm not sure, but The Auk does not appear to have been renewed in 1956, nor is Thomas Barbour or Allan Brooks listed as renewing a contribution to a Periodical, so this is possibly {{PD-US-not renewed}}. I find the copyright archives difficult to navigate, though, and I may have made an error. Storkk (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. 199.112.128.15 16:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The second link should probably be to https://archive.org/stream/catalogofcopyrig3101lib#page/678/mode/2up , which is the Jan-Jun 1956 book instead of the Jul-Dec. They are not there either, though that's unsurprising given they both appear to have died in January 1946. If their estates renewed their copyright, I'm not 100% sure where to look. Storkk (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Mass DR Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Wellcome DR request for RAMC has been unedited for several weeks. 796 files are still listed for deletion, many of these have already been determined to be PD. This DR has been badly prepared and unmanagable from the beginning. Looks like not a single administrator is prepared to mass delete these files. I propose to keep-close the DR for now. Later smaller DRs can be made for a selection of files, this time with a good explanation for each file and of course without listing PD files. Jcb (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

There are offwiki discussions going on. While I'm prepared to do a mass deletion I'm also prepared to wait out the offwiki discussions. In the meantime we leave it open.Geni (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Supposed offwiki discussions are irrelevant, decisions need to be taken based on public onwiki discussions. Jcb (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

When they involve the GLAMs involved they are not irrelevant if we wish to keep good relationships with the institutions in question.Geni (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Drop the stick. Your tendentious actions on this case have been unhelpful for the Commons mission or an appropriate application of Commons:Licensing.

By the way, I disagree with the statement "796 files are still listed for deletion, many of these have already been determined to be PD". Files which have been marked as public domain have been removed from the category. If you have identified any missed exceptions, please just go ahead and remove them from the category rather than complaining and expecting someone else to do it, you do not need anyone's permission. Thanks in advance for being helpful. --Fæ (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Currently no wiki search for this specific topic. I saw the following on bbc (see url). I've never added/edited to wiki so if someone can review and add I would appreciate. I do not need any attribution for myself. US election glossary: A-Z guide to political jargon 20 September 2016 http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37385625 (SVF added "Flyover"+ additions to Gerrymandering)) Do you know your beltway from your bellwether? And what are blue states and red states? Use our guide below to help you navigate the election news. What does all this US jargon mean? at website ..Enter a keyword, e.g. Caucus A Air war: The battle between candidates to get as much advertising on television and radio as possible. In recent years, online adverts, which are cheaper and can be more carefully targeted, have grown increasingly important. B Balancing the ticket: When the presidential candidate chooses a vice-presidential candidate whose qualities balance out the nominee's perceived weaknesses. So for example, in 2008, Barack Obama, seen as young and relatively inexperienced, selected veteran Senator Joe Biden as his running mate. Ballot initiative: A procedure allowed in a number of states under which citizens are able to propose a change in the law. If the initiative's backers can gather enough signatures, the proposed change is put to the voters in a referendum. If it is approved by the voters it then becomes law. Ballot initiatives are sometimes referred to as ballot measures or propositions. Battleground state: A large state with an electorate split relatively evenly between Democrats and Republicans, so named because candidates spend a disproportionate amount of time and money campaigning there. Traditional battleground states include Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, which have 29, 18 and 20 electoral votes respectively. Bellwether state: A state that historically tends to vote for the winning candidate, perhaps because it is, demographically, a microcosm of the country as a whole. Good examples are Missouri, which

I have entire piece on WORD doc but do not see a way to upload it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikistephen (talk • contribs) 09:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't that document be better on Wikisource than here? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this sounds like it's something better suited to Wikisource, it's not really appropriate for Commons. Nick (talk) 09:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Nella cronologia di File:Monumento funebre di Cesare Borgia (Viana).jpg bisogna rimuovere le frasi offensive inserite dal solito utente (ip 87.9.30.30) già ben conosciuto (Utente:Darja82 e altri sock. Controllare altri contributi dell'IP, altri oggetti da oscurare.
Please remove from Revision history of File:Monumento funebre di Cesare Borgia (Viana).jpg object inserted by 87.9.30.30, offensive language. Please check other IP contributions, other offensive term to remove.
Grazie --%Pier% (talk) 09:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done IP blocked for 3 months, most of his edits erased. lNeverCry 10:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Please delete the original version of File:Bosch GMS 120.jpg (the one from October 5) as I accidentally left location data in it. --Widar23 (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Didym (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks --Widar23 (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Can we get an admin to look over/add the flickr accounts listed on Commons talk:Questionable Flickr images to the Bad Authors list please? Doesn't seem like there has been any action since late August by admins over there. Thanks, Elisfkc (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done All caught up. I'll keep this on my watch list so I can do these more quickly in future. lNeverCry 23:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I was suggested by @INeverCry: to discuss this rather than at DR. The reason I am here is to request the deletion of the files File:2014 White Winter Olympics logo.svg and File:Sochi 2014 logo no rings.png. Both logos are pure text (I know), but these text logos and the font are "[Above] the bar of creativity" according to the WMF's legal department. The owner of these logos, the International Olympic Committee, contacted the OTRS team through the ticket #2010031110047226 (I think this is the ticket). Although the files are not the files they requested to be deleted (the original has the Olympic Rings), the text is the same as the one from their complain, i.e., the one WMF said it was original enough. Because of this, I am requesting these files to be deleted. Tbhotch™ 05:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

My advice was to bring this here or COM:OTRS/N since an OTRS ticket was involved, and since there are plenty of admin/OTRS members on both boards that could handle these deletions per the OTRS ticket a lot faster and simpler than a random DR that would gather dust for a week. lNeverCry 06:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I`ve replaced this old file with a vector version on Hebrew wiki, so you can delete it. Thanks, Tal (רונאלדיניו המלך, talk) 18:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: In use on he:תרשים. --Achim (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Fix that, now can be deleted. Tal (רונאלדיניו המלך, talk) 22:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done here, follow up Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mivne.gif. --Achim (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't originally planning on including Commons in this request but if anyone (admin or not) is willing to participate, I am currently in need of an interview or two with fairly well established Wikipedia writers/editors. The questions are located at en:User:EoRdE6/Graduation Project/Interview, simply answer them on that page and save it (or send them in an email if you are uncomfortable sharing that information on Wikipedia). I would greatly appreciate at least 1 admin responding to these questions too but any answers from anyone are welcome. Need these rather urgently for my graduation paper on the growth of Wikipedia. Any help is greatly appreciated! Thanks!! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Could an administrator please delete this revision of File:Yuri Andropov - Soviet Life, August 1983.jpg? User:Al-Douri uploaded it overtop the previous public-domain, black-and-white version, not realizing that a separate copyright may persist in the colour version. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Psychonaut: Done. The color version is probably under copyright in Russia. Revent^talk 15:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if this isn't the right place to report this but I can't think of another. It appears that [29] is corrupted. When I try to load it I get a screen full of garbage. Yintan (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Works for me, both ways: The file page and the direct link. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I have the same problem, using Safari 10 on macOS Sierra. MediaViewer shows a HTTP error. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Same problem in Firefox on Windows (looks like the binary image is being served as text), works fine on Firefox on Linux. Storkk (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Yintan and Storkk: Guys, try to restart FF. Yesterday everything was fine, today, a several minutes ago, I tried to load the photo a few times, got garbage every time and finally FF crashed. After the crash everything is fine again. FF 47.0.1 on XP. --jdx ^Re: 20:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

If displaying a jpg image (well-formed or not) crashes a well-known browser, that's a serious bug either in Firefox or in Mediawiki. I had assumed it was some minor Mime type error on Mediawiki's part... perhaps it's more serious. Storkk (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Reported to phabricator, since it does not appear to be isolated to FF. Storkk (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm using FF v. 47.0.1 on Windows 7 (32 bit) and it works just fine. Also this file which was reported below. De728631 (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Yintan: the issue no longer occurs for me - has it fixed itself on your end? Storkk (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Storkk: . Yes. This is weird. Yintan (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It appears that at least one upload.wikimedia.org server was having transient issues. Please alert again if this happens again, but it seems resolved for now. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Could an independent administrator review the actions of Jcb against Piotrus please? The history includes what appears to be a history of inappropriate revert warring over use of the 'no source' template, there is no block rationale given, and Jcb appears inappropriately involved to be an administrator taking any action in this case.

The background was under active discussion before this block action, at Commons:Village pump#User nominating images with sources for deletion with no sources template. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I removed the block. The admin who placed the block ended up having a conflict with this user and therefor he was too involved to act. He should have asked a colleague to place a block instead of doing it himself. Jcb didn’t used enough resources to resolve this without using the admin tools in my opinion and as an admin he should have been the bigger men by converting the no source nominations to regular deletion requests.

Regarding the removal of the no source tags. Valid arguments where used when removing those tags. See here and here. The edit war was wrong though but regarding the edit war, both parties where in the wrong and one wrong party shouldn’t block another wrong party when that is the case.

Regarding Jcb’s communication. His warning was quite hostile almost giving an guarantee that the situation will escalate. A more detailed explanation should have been provided and it should have been provided in a more productive manner. Jcb also didn’t mention any of the arguments provided by Piotrus while Piotrus did the right thing by starting a debate using valid arguments. Jcb knew about this debate and yet he decided to use the block tools instead of talking it over.

TLDR: Jcb acted as an involved admin not responding to valid arguments while escalating the situation because he acted poorly and didn’t communicate properly and therefor I unblocked Piotrus. Natuur12 (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

See also User talk:Jcb#Windpark Gries 2016.jpg, which was approximately three days before the block discussed above. While, as I stated at the time, Kla4 did, in effect, ask for it, I also (mildly) reminded him that he should not act as an administrator when involved. Jcb then, an hour after I left that message on his talk page, 'again' acted as an administrator when involved, by revoking the talk page access of the same editor... who was, admittedly, this time "literally" asking for it, but the actual 'reason' matters less than that Jcb should have reported the editor, both times, for another admin to act, and ignored me pointing it out the first time. Revent^talk 20:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I feel this will be archived and nothing will change. Jcb has not apologised or recognized his demonstrably poor judgement in the use of sysop tools to now several people inappropriately blocked by him in the last couple of months (which includes me). Neither has he recognized there is an issue even when several experienced administrators are explaining to him that there is one.

Anyone reviewing the many complaints on his user talk page and recent archive will find cases of responses that are the opposite of working constructively with others when wielding admin rights, and a search of the UNDEL archives will find extremely unhappy requests for undeletion after contentious or out-of-process deletions, which have been granted by other administrators. I fully recognize that administrators may have to make unpopular decisions, and certainly deletions are often unpopular with uploaders, however this is different from leaving a trail of disruptive errors and defensive responses to others with legitimate complaints and requests for reinvestigation based on evidence provided. In past threads on this noticeboard Jcb has followed the strategy of saying nothing, not admitting mistakes even when completely blatant, nor of apologising to anyone, even for blunders that were his fault and instigation. How many mistakes have to waste everyone's time, before Jcb is required to acknowledge his approach does not meet the Administrators guidelines and commit to changing, or we have to go to a desysop request in his silence? --Fæ (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

If I heard a single word of apology, I would be inclined to let the matter drop, but lack of it suggests that Jcb believes he did nothing wrong. And since I do believe I was a clear victim of admin abuse of powers, effectively attempting to shut me up and/or discourage from criticizing/reviewing said admins contributions, I can only second Fæ (which seems like it is becoming my habit in the past 24h, lol). Jokes aside, admin abuse of powers is no laughing power, particularly if it has not been an isolated incident. On English Wikipedia this could be a matter for an ArbCom, through I am not that familiar with Commons practices. At the very least I would expect apology and confirmation that Jcb will not take admin action where he is an involved party. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Please refer to Commons:Village pump#Proposal to ban Jcb from using the 'no source' template for six months. --Fæ (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hay un error en el archivo File:ApisDorsataHive.jpg al tratar de abrirlo se ve codificado y si se descarga el archivo tiene extensión *.htm. Lo descargué y le cambié la extensión pero me da error de subida (txt or html) y photoshop me dide:

No se ha podido abrir [...] porque el segmento del marcador JPEG es demasiado corto (es posible que el archivo esté incompleto)

.

Traslate to english please. --Jcfidy (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T148497

I believe you are seeing the same error (at least I see the same error when viewing the full JPG in Firefox and Chrome on Windows) as the one reported above. I have now reported it on Phabricator, as it does not appear to be isolated to Firefox. Storkk (talk) 10:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, my browser is Firefox 32bit. --Jcfidy (talk) 11:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jcfidy: the issue no longer occurs for me - has it fixed itself on your end? Storkk (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Storkk: ok, arreglado. Muchas gracias. --Jcfidy (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello.Please check Special:ListFiles/Kerberosmansour I think that all files are not free and licensed incorrectly.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific? What makes you think that these are licensed incorrectly? E. g. the photographs all have EXIF metadata from an iphone which is an indicator that they are in fact personal snapshots taken by the uploader. And the textbook pdfs all seem to have been issued by the Egyptian ministry of education which should make them official documents as claimed in the licence tag. De728631 (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@De728631: The Books are not documents.See also File:1 prep الدراسات الاجتماعيةStudent.BT2-2014.pdf --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like you're right. I have nominated the textbook files for deletion. De728631 (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello.google images says that File:Lebanon mountains from near Maqial el Qalaa.jpg produced before 04-11-2008.Please check this.Thank you -‏-ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The last result in your Google images search seems to take the date from another image. The cropped version of our featured image shown there was posted to this website on 18 May 2010 (not that Lebanon is actually in the Persian Gulf, but what does it matter ...). That was a few months after Peripitus uploaded the photograph here at Commons, so I don't see a problem. De728631 (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Please protect my talk page, 99% of all edits are rather annoying bot entries concerning deletion requests of files where I removed watermarks, frames etc. some years ago. Any human user sould find the way to my german WP user talk page. Tx. Andy king50 (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of the talkpage is that users can contact you here on commons, not on dewiki. I see no valid reason (such as persistent vandalism, etc.) to lock the talkpage. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You can use {{Nobots}} to block bots from editing your user or user talk page. However, most of the edits on your page are automated notifications by actual users, so nobots wouldn't apply to them. You could set up automatic archiving of your user talk page to archive those messages periodically (see User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup). clpo13_(talk) 16:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Andy auf seiner DE Disku angesprochen, hier erledigt. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I am Julianne Buescher. There is a photo that is file-named with MY PERSONAL NAME. The photo is not even me. I am requesting that my name be removed as the file name and not be associated with the photo. Either that, or delete the photo. The file is called Julianne Buescher.jpg. And please remove "JulianneBuescher.jpeg' from your "File Redirect". No one, including the photographer has requested, or been given permission to use my name to post, advertise, or publish anything with my name directly attached...especially when the photo is NOT ME.

Thank you for your help in this matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJJBBBB (talk • contribs) 03:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if this is a case of different people with the same name... the image is described at "", and appears to clearly be the person shown here, in a video of the event. Revent^talk 04:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I had the same thought. With 7 billion people on Earth, names are going to be duplicated amongst many many people. I see no reason to believe that the image is *not* of an actress named Julianne Buescher. For that reason, I feel that the image rename to a generic title should probably be reversed. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• User:JJJJBBBB, are you, or are you not Julianne Buescher, «American actress, voice actress, writer, singer and puppeteer who performs in film, television, radio, and on stage»? And if you are, then what’s this video about? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 05:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• Ibrahim Husain Meraj moved the file to File:Woman with brown hair infront of a microphone.jpg. I suggest we move it back, given that this is clearly Julianne Buescher. The complainant may be another Julianne Buescher, but that's irrelevant to this filename, which should clearly be at the original name, IMO. Storkk (talk) 08:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Either the original filename, but I would suggest moving it to something more descriptive, since we'd have the chance. Perhaps as mentioned above: File:Julianne Buescher at San Diego Comic-Con 2016.jpg. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'd  Support that name, with a redirect from the original name. I don't think we need a redirect from the generic name. Storkk (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Floatjon: could you please provide information if you had the consent of the depicted person when you took the photo? --SI 08:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

While that might be nice to know, I'm not sure it's relevant. This is an actress giving a public talk at a public event in the United States. No consent would appear to be necessary, and in any case would likely be implied by her participation in the panel event. Storkk (talk) 09:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly my thinking. If you are giving a talk in public, particularly in a forum where photography is expected, you are implicitly giving permission. It would be massively impractical to get explicit permission from speakers at Comic-Con in any event. Mind you, if Ms. B. wishes to provide a photo she prefers, with proper permissions, that would be fine with me. I also agree that, consistent with the 3 times the rename was denied, it should be moved back to a location containing the subject's name; Huntster's suggestion is fine, or maybe something more concise like File:Julianne Buescher at SDCC 2016.jpg. --Floatjon (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. As a photographer I would have expected you had a better sourced information on the photo policies for an event you published photos and subjects under a CCbySA licence. But as a service I found the link http://www.comic-con.org/cci/convention-policies what I would read as "taking photos allowed", while I didn't find any info about the policies publishing of those material yet. --SI 10:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I missed part of the point of your question. I would refer you to this page which, by mentioning only commercial purposes and certain other narrow limitations that don't apply here strongly implies no particular policy for other activities, thus general laws apply. At least, that's my non-professional opinion. Mind, I was not attending as press this year, but it's the only photo policy I'm aware of. --Floatjon (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Since faces of people themselves are not copyrighted, the restrictions would arise only from "personality rights" side. And personality rights are managed here by American law, not any guideline provided by an organisation in a webpage. American law happens apparently to be "no consent required for taking a photo or publishing it".For example, a museum could ban taking photographs of their collections, and they have the right to reject you if they catch you doing that in their building (it's called "Right of Admission Reserved"). But if you get a pic of an old painting out of copyright, I think you have the right to publish it, whether the museum likes it or not. Maybe a {{Personality rights}} template should be attached to that woman's photo (I really don't know if she is Ms. Buescher), though. Strakhov (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I have semi-protected File:Woman with brown hair infront of a microphone.jpg now, as IP 69.228.34.96 from California has repeatedly removed legitimate data from the description and added "NO PEMISSION GRANTED BY SUBJECT". --Túrelio (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The image in question is not really a good portrait, but there is no doubt that it shows Mrs. Buescher. --Túrelio (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Uhm no one holds the rights to (bar the photographer of images taken) at public events and comic con is as public as it can get..., please restore the file name, description and put the image back into the article and block people who keep removing it, tell them this is wikipedia, not their personal resume service, they neither own the article or whats written or displayed on it.--Stemoc 10:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I've moved the file back to its original name and replaced it in the article. The article will have to be watched unless someone wants to talk to an admin over there. I've blocked the IP and account here for a few days. As for Schmarrnintelligenz, I don't know what you're on about, but we've literally got thousands and thousands of Comic-con photos. They're fine. It's a public event. Pretty much everyone there has a camera or phone to take pics with. Let's not feed unfounded worries and freakouts. lNeverCry 11:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

the name and description of the image File:Aweonao qlo.jpg contains "aweonao" and "csm" that could be "concha de su madre". Both are in Chile abusive words and shouldn't be used for a living person. Please change the name and the description. --Keysanger 11:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I think a Spanish speaker should visit the User:PizzaDestroyer and decide whether it is acc. to the commons rules. --Keysanger 11:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The file has now been renamed to File:Person with small snake.jpg, and I will nominate it for deletion. I will look into PizzaDestroyer's other edits shortly. Storkk (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Keysanger: I've removed the caption of the image on his userpage, but won't take further action right now. You have warned him on his talk page, and for now that's probably sufficient. Storkk (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Keysanger 13:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)