Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 87

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

Mass-message request for WLM-US 2021

Hello! I'm one of the organizers for Wiki Loves Monuments in the US. Could the following message be sent out to all of last year's contributors inviting them to this year's event?

Thank you! ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted fantasy flags restored by Yann

The user-generated fantasy flags pulled from thin air deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Yes0song have been restored by @Yann: as result of a undeletion request that, like the initial deletion request demonstrated unequivocally that there was no evidence for any of these images' existence before their upload to Commons and that they had no possible educational use. Nevertheless, Yann has restored the images because they appear to feel "These are not vanity images, or made out of tin air" even though this very claim was made (without evidence and with misleading links that did not support the assertions made) and thoroughly debunked by multiple users in the deletion request and in the undeletion request. @P199: rightly deleted the images, and Thuresson, Jameslwoodward and I all opposed their recreation, which was requested as a second bite of the cherry by the sole opponent of the initial deletion. Ankry said that they Support undeletion if there is no copyright doubts and the images are in use, but as far as I am aware, none of the files was in use. Naturally this is because, as vanity files invented de novo by their uploaders or otherwise anonymous non-notable people for whom no evidence exists, no purpose for them exists on Commons. I note that, at the request of the same fantasy flag proponent, Fry1989, Yann also restored File:AflagforIraq.svg using the same faulty reasoning. It is my view that all these vanity projects should be re-deleted, because, contrary to Yann's claim that: These are not vanity images, or made out of tin air. There are perfectly in scope, these images are all indeed vanity images, were all indeed made out of thin air, and therefore are wholly out of scope.

Should anyone have lingering doubts about whether self-created fantasy flags unattested outside Commons are within COM:SCOPE, see specifially COM:NOTUSED, where the following appears (lightly modified for clarity): Not all images for example are realistically useful for an educational purpose. An image does not magically become useful by virtue of the argument that it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on Xfantasy flags, merely because Xflags happens to be the subject of the photographSVG. For example, the fact that an unused blurred photographunused user-generated fantasy flag could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on "Common mistakes in photography"user-generated fantasy flags does not mean that we should keep all blurred photographsunused user-generated fantasy flags. The fact that an unused snapshot of your friendfantasy flag could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on "Photographic portraiture"flags does not mean that we should keep all photographs ofuser-generated fantasy flags made by unknown people. The fact that an unused pornographicuser-generated fantasy flag image could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on pornographyfantasy flags does not mean that we should keep low quality pornographicuser-generated fantasy flag images. See also COM:SPAM, where these words appear There are plenty of other projects on the Internet you can use for such a purpose, such as Flickr. GPinkerton (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GPinkerton: Your insistance on deleting perfectly valid content is a problem. This is not the first time. Drop that now, you have nothing to gain here. Yann (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Why do you keep repeating that this is "perfectly valid content". It is not. They are unused vanity images, and there's been nary a shred of evidence to the contrary. GPinkerton (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated in my unDR, one image in particular fits (according to my definition) project scope because it was submitted to a "real world" contest. The others, I am prepared to admit fall under "crystal balling" as GPinkerton called it in the DR itself, but GPinkerton's lack of willingness to compromise and over-zealous interpretation of the threshold needing to be met to fit project scope I feel is counter-productive. That's really all I have to say here, other than that will not I communicate directly with GPinkerton since they decided to over-simplfy my arguments in DRs down to "I like/don't like it", which I have never once said in all my years. Fry1989 eh? 18:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You did state that yes, but you were wrong, or at least, the webpage you linked to in support of your claims did not include the image you claimed it did. It is very boring to click through all the image on that webpage, but if one does one see that the flag you claimed is there is not. Even if it were, that would not necessarily make it in scope and in any case none of the other images presently restored has even been claimed to have been anything but a unused de novo self-indulgence. GPinkerton (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was submitted to a "real world contest", but it didn't make the first cut of 77 images. So, as I said at the UnDR, we have established a precedent that all a non-notable artist has to do to get his workoon Commons is to submit it to a contest -- no matter whether it makes it past the first stage.

We don't keep personal art work unless the work or the artist are notable in some way. Placing worse the 77th in a newspaper contest doesn't seem notable to me. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO none of these should've been restored - There's no actual purpose to hosting fake flags here none whatsoever and being in a contest imho isn't a valid reason either. –Davey2010Talk 20:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, there isn't any evidence it ever was in any such a competition. The file description states at present "Made by me original maker"; and even Fry1989's original claim was "proposals such as File:St Patrick Northern Ireland Flag.png were submitted". Commons is not supposed to an infinite repository of "such as" material, as set out in the policy aforequoted. GPinkerton (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GPinkerton: If these flags were published in a newpaper, that's the basic notability requirement for including a subject in a Wikimedia project. We could have an article about this contest, so these flags are undoubtedly in scope. In any way, deleting them was the wrong decision. Why don't you spend your time helping the project instead? Regards, Yann (talk) 08:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: You appear to have misunderstood. Not one of these images has ever been published by a newspaper. That's simply untrue. Neither was there a competition. The "write-in your own fantasy flags" that happened once is wholly and entirely unrelated to any of these images. They have never appeared outside Commons, let alone in print. Please stop just saying they're in scope because they've been published somewhere; it's simply wrong. They aren't and they haven't. GPinkerton (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Can you explain why you overrode consensus? Which Commons policy were you enforcing when you made a decision that ran counter to the consensus at both discussions? —Locke Coletc 16:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus here. Two opinions for deletion and two for keeping, plus GPinkerton who is trolling around. Yann (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: that's a serious accusation, are you going to back it with kind of evidence of anything of that nature or are you just saying that because you disagree with my deletion requests and with the deleting admins? GPinkerton (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The undeletion discussion had three opposes and two supports (one of which was conditional on the images being used, which most are not, so really a net three opposes to one support for most of them). I'll ask again: Which Commons policy were you enforcing when you made a decision that ran counter to the consensus at both discussions? —Locke Coletc 16:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Locke Cole: Get down from your high horse. First you can count me as support for keeping them, so that makes 3 for deletion and 3 for keeping. But most importantly, there is no external law or rule which might dictate us to delete these files. Keeping them cause no harm to anyone. So when a significant portion of people (50% here) think that a file can be hosted on Commons, I don't see any valid reason to delete them. And again, since there is nothing at stake here, arguing for their deletion is just a useless discussion flattering ego and vanity. I have better things to do. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If "arguing for their deletion is just a useless discussion flattering ego and vanity" what does arguing for the undeletion of hoax images whose sole purpose is flattering ego and vanity consist of? Do we just get ignore policy merely because doing so and "Keeping them cause no harm to anyone"? Does this apply to all files or just vanity flags? GPinkerton (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Get down from your high horse. You first? Just because you're the oldest (by time with the bit) administrator here does not make you infallible or the font of all knowledge of Commons. Clearly (as I'll demonstrate shortly) you probably should not be an administrator and your behavior and replies here IMO suggest maybe it's time you either step down or are desysop'd. First you can count me as support for keeping them, so that makes 3 for deletion and 3 for keeping. No. 1) That would still leave it at three for deletion to two for keeping (you're ignoring that one of the "keeps" conditioned their vote on the images being used). 2) As the arbiter of closing a discussion you really should be impartial. If you wanted to vote, you should have done so and left the close to an uninvolved administrator. 3) More importantly, a discussion in deletion should not be able to override sitewide policies/guidelines, a local consensus does not overturn a decision made by the community at large (that way lies madness). These images violate COM:SCOPE and COM:NOTHOST (to name just a few), they hold no educational value and have no purpose here. But most importantly, there is no external law or rule which might dictate us to delete these files. You're correct, no external law or rule, just Commons rules. Keeping them cause no harm to anyone. That is not a compelling reason to override consensus or the rules on Commons. So when a significant portion of people (50% here) think that a file can be hosted on Commons, I don't see any valid reason to delete them. It's actually only 33%, as I explained previously, it was 4 keep to 2 delete. And again, since there is nothing at stake here, arguing for their deletion is just a useless discussion flattering ego and vanity. I have better things to do. Your dismissiveness is noted. You truly are the worst administrator I've ever seen here, and that's saying a lot. You don't deserve that title/role. —Locke Coletc 18:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to express my general support of Yann's undeletion of the files. Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia, and the bar for inclusion is not "notability." In non-copyright cases, the burden is on those who want the files to be deleted to show that they are clearly out of scope based on policy. These flag designs are of a high quality, were potentially proposed in real life, are not damaging to the project, and have the potential to depict the burgeoning online subculture of amateur vexillologists, which has received recognition in the news media and is covered at Vexillology.  Mysterymanblue  16:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The abuse of Commons referred to as "These flag designs are of a high quality, were potentially proposed in real life, are not damaging to the project, and have the potential to depict the burgeoning online subculture of amateur vexillologists" is exactly the abuse COM:NOTHOST exists to forbid. GPinkerton (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Although we do host media and images on Wikimedia Commons, all content must be within our project's scope, which requires, among other things, that all media must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Unless your images are educationally useful and in the scope of this project, Wikimedia Commons is not a place to store your vacation photouser-generated fantasy flag collection. GPinkerton (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are we going to relitigate Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fictional Goa flag.svg or Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Navy of Montenegro (fictional).svg whose (utter lack of) worth is identical to these flags which Yann has restored. GPinkerton (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the deletion of the second, because it wasn't COM:INUSE, and thus COM:NOTWEBHOST applies. The first, I could quibble with, because it was transcluded on en:incubatorwiki:Wp/gub/Main Page. COM:INUSE covers all in-mainspace-use files--even files that we think aren't educational--because that's the other projects decision, not ours. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I support undeleting other fictional flags per GPinkerton's arguments above. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 17:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support overturning the undeletions of the out-of-use files (which I believe were out of scope), but keeping undeleted any ones that were in-use (as they are automatically in scope). —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:61417197c2766.image.jpg

I attempted to nominate this image for deletion as a copyright violation but was prevented from doing so due to it being protected. As has been established at multiple deletion requests in the past (example), images from the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) are not available under a license compatible with commons, much less the cc-by-sa-4.0 license stipulated. This upload is a copyright violation and needs to be deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the people who wrote the news article on Wikinews where the image is being used (and thus protected) [1]. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft: Which image from Category:Kim Jong-un and children would be the best replacement for use on n:? A redlink there would look very bad.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Acagastya said that, he will replace the file with image not available template. -- CptViraj (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They replaced it with File:Inter-Korean Summit May 2018.jpg. Thanks everyone. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block request

Hi, Could an admin block Noauid and delete all of their uploads please? - I don't know if they're a minor but either way they're uploading dick pics and then nominating them for deletion, Leaving English warnings would be pointless and I don't speak whatever language they speak either, Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 15:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Davey2010: Deleted the uploads and left a warning that should autotranslate into Korean, which I think they speak. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Mdaniels5757 your help is greatly appreciated, I had no idea we even had a porn warning message here and I certainly support warning over blocking so thanks for that! :), Many thanks, Kind Regards, –Davey2010Talk 17:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping flickr mass uploads without selection and categorization

Hello, would it be possible to stop flickr mass uploads

without selection and categorization, where a lot of pictures show the same motive, until this issue is solved? Thanks a lot! --M2k~dewiki (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a day with a message. Yann (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

POTY titleblacklist change

Could someone comment out the line Commons:Picture of the Year\/2020\/R\d\/v\/.* <noedit|errmsg=Protectedpagetext/PageProtected> # protect voting in Mediawiki:titleblacklist so that I can create the handful of R2 vote pages? May as well leave it commented out and I’ll monitor them and reject any early votes - saves admin time. Thanks! firefly ( t · c ) 22:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Please don't worry about admin time. When done, just ping me and I'll de-comment it again until the beginning of the second round. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@4nn1l2 many thanks - done. If you (or another admin) could de-comment again at 1500 UTC that would be fantastic. Thanks for all your support! firefly ( t · c ) 07:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done De-commented at 15:20 UTC. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revision deletion

A portion of the content that has not been addressed as of yet is ready to be addressed right now as we speak. In fact, it was when I was attempting to let the previous admin who was working with me know via e-mail of that fact when I found out that he had retired.

[...]

I previously had this request headered "Oversight" for consistency's sake with previous discussions, but apparently that led the discussion going off in a different direction than what was intended.

To reiterate, I previously requested some help removing some personal information from some things. Following my request, an admin had been helping me address it. That admin unfortunately retired from Wikimedia Commons before all of the content in question could be addressed. Because of a quirk in the way MediaWiki itself works, the quirk in question needed to be worked around before the content could be addressed. Thus, the removal of the personal information had to happen over a period of time. Over the period of time between the admin offering to help me, and the time that that admin retired, a portion of the content was successfully addressed. But before all of it could be addressed, the admin in question retired.

Right now, I am seeking to have the revision deletion step completed for the rest of the content. After that is finished, I will pursue oversight for all of the relevant content. All of the amount left of the content at this current moment that still first needs to have the quirk worked around before it can be addressed can be made to be ready to be addressed in a reasonable period of time (a week or two, perhaps). I can assure you of that, and commit to that being the case.

Hence why I now pursue the completion of the revision deletion step here. Tharthan (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce Protection

Hello, Hope you are doing well. Actually I have upload two logos to commons (File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-ks-1.svg) and (File:Wiktionary-logo-ks.svg) which are used as a logo for ks wikipedia and ks wiktionary respectively, so the files are protected. The local community at ks wikipedia and wiktionary have raised issues about the text size as it is a bit small. Now, I have created new .svg logos and increased the size and want to upload it. Since the files are protected, I can't upload them. Can you reduce the protection so that updated files can be uploaded. Thankyou. Iflaq (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instant Delete (still) broken

Hi, On October 9th, I reported that Instant Delete was broken. @Christian Ferrer: mentioned the same problem on October 10th. The tool is still broken. This needs a fix. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is mw:MediaWiki 1.37/Deprecation of legacy API token parameters, should be a fairly easy fix, I'll work on it. COM:VPT is probably a better place to report broken scripts in the future. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann Should be fixed now, please let me know if there are any more problems. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it works! @AntiCompositeNumber: Thanks a lot! Yann (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki messages to delete

The messages below can be deleted, they were created to temporarily fix phab:T291678, but they are no longer needed.

Messages

Dylsss (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Impfpass bitte- undelete

Hi!

May I ask why is that removed??? [2] [3]

we all have right to mock and ridicule every policy of every government.[4]

and this is just one of it: mocking the current german government policy.

This is just a pure censorship under the excuse of political correctness! Quahadi Añtó 20:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Quahadi: Per Commons:Project scope, files hosted on Wikimedia Commons must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's not a free host for any and every image. After a discussion, the image in question was determined not to meet the scope criteria, which is why it was deleted. If you disagree with that decision, you can discuss it with the deleting admin or bring it up at COM:UDR. clpo13(talk) 21:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Clpo13:

educational öpurpose is clear for everybody who has heard the latin phraseHistoria magistra vitae. Plus, I have noticed no "discussion". Just a deleteion request by Achim who found it "inaapropriate and distasteful". just his opinion. \\Quahadi Añtó 18:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Quahadi: I have not seen the image, I assume it was your creation. Probably it was a caricature (using an image from the Nazi era!), but apart from that the chosen file name alone deserves deletion. It evokes the conception that the image is a work of the German government in the Bundesarchiv. That looks like malicious intent. --C.Suthorn (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Suthorn: I retouched this picture [5] : i think it was quite clear that I was the author of retouching |Quahadi Añtó 18:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Quahadi: Four years ago, the community decided that my attempts at attribution for photos I had improved and fixed were insufficient at Commons:Deletion requests/User:Jeff G./Improved photo and Commons:Deletion requests/User:Jeff G./Fixed photo.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 21:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: This is not about attributions but about out of scope material. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the image, but Commons is not generally the place for mocking the current government policy, unless it's done by notable artists, and then notable as their work, not for their messaging.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Quahadi: As already explained by clpo13, this adaptation was out of COM:SCOPE. Commons is not the place to upload your own op'ed expressions against legislation and rules related to the Covid-19 pandemic. We would keep such material only if the creator is notable and/or if that work found significant distribution in press publications etc. Commons is not the place to express your political views but a media archive where each media must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Hence, the deletion was justified. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • No doubt there are others places on the internet where you can share your opinions. Unless you are a famous editorial cartoonist or your work has significant historic documentary importance, your wish to direct venomous insults toward several billion people is not within Wikimedia Commons Project Scope. - Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File versions removal request

Hello. I have received permission for the file File:Вікіконференція 2021 Онлайн - PR vs Вікіпедія.pdf from its author in VRTS, however the author demands that her file should be in a limited resolution. I have uploaded a new version of this file with reduced resolution, now the previous version of the file should be hidden. --TohaomgTohaomg (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Administrators/Requests/SaltzBeach

I wasn't sure what to do with this yet unlisted request. Anyway, smells kinda fishy. --jdx Re: 08:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, seems to be a (sort of) joke or profound misunderstanding. Less than 3 hours after creating an account on Commons, SaltzBeach (talk · contribs) requests adninship. Overall 40 edits, so far, some of them soliciting votes[6],[7]. --Túrelio (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just dismiss the request with a message to come back in a few months / years. Yann (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not a joke. I REALLY want to be admin. Saltz Beach —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SaltzBeach: You can't even date your post, after 2 tries. See COM:SNOW and COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 22:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: There's absolutely no need to be harsh with SaltzBeach. Yet you wanted to be an admin. Biting newcomers is not a good point of start. --Bedivere (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SaltzBeach and Bedivere: Ok, sorry.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not be credulous. SaltzBeach is MiniFax (blocked for disruption on en.wikitionary) and LuminousDark (blocked as a sock of MiniFax)--see [8] and [9]. They are only a "newcomer" insofar as they are now importing their nonsense to the Commons. Эlcobbola talk 15:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

POTY R2 internal advertising

Hello! Could an admin enable the Main Page advertisement for POTY R2 (effectively restoring this revision, swapping 2020 for 2019, and ensuring it links to R2), and also the watchlist advertisement (e.g. this, adjusting to link to R2). Thanks! firefly ( t · c ) 06:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a redirect

Hi, I'm having issues in deleting redirects: after clicking on the "delete" button, the browser goes to the linked file delete page. I am the only one having this issue?

E.g. Try to delete https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Kit_body_asroma2122tf.png&redirect=no

Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 15:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It worked on the second try. Yann (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had the same problem. I replaced the text of the #redirect by the simple word test. Then I could delete it. I do not know whether it was intended to delete File:Kit body asroma2122ff.png, which Yann did. Elly (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: At the second try you got the same error I had: you deleted the file Kit_body_asroma2122ff.png, not the redirect. --Ruthven (msg) 09:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI phab:T293980 --Ruthven (msg) 09:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Спасимир

It appears from comments on their Facebook page from friends and family that our colleague User:Спасимир has sadly passed. Please can someone take the usual measures? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Usual measures are taken, user is globally locked. Taivo (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Patrick Rogel

User is deceased. Please remove their user rights. 1989 (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. No need to remove rights. Instead, I blocked him indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. By the way, the correct template to use is this scenario is {{not done}}. 1989 (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tegel-pinger

@Tegel: 2606:40:48:4792:0:0:260:FDD3 00:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is from a fast-hopping vandal attacking Tegel’s TP, apparently with access to an IPv6 range of /42 or so. Can it be range-blocked? (Should be at AN/V, but what the hey.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like AntiCompositeNumber just blocked 2606:40:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk contribs WHOIS RBL guc stalktoy block user block log) as an open proxy. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, another example that it's time to end nonsense called "IP editing". Fortunately, it seems that our world has started to change, see: m:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation/Login Required Experiment and m:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation/Impact report for Login Required Experiment on Portuguese Wikipedia. IMO with or without WMF's approval we could try it ourselves. Especially that about month ago Farsi Wikipedia started such an experiment. --jdx Re: 05:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Commons isn't a great place to do it as an "experiment", since our editing dynamics lean heavily toward registration already. But it's definitely something worth discussing when the WMF decides it's not just for research anymore. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why "lean heavily"? One is not required to log in in order to vandalize Commons. Face-smile.svg Just like on Wikipedias. On the other hand, I have never tried it personally, but I bet that in order to upload an image e.g. on English Wikipedia registration is also required. Besides, Commons and Wikidata serve as repositories for many other WMF'a projects so common sense prompts me that IP ban on these two projects is a great idea. Anyway, I very much would like to know what percentage of IP edits on Commons is reverted, how many/how often IPs are blocked, etc. --jdx Re: 05:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion request

Hi, Could an admin delete File:CPAM 1410 AM logo (cropped).png under user request please ? (I was meant to have overwrote the file not uploaded as a new one)
- Unfortunately today my laptop keyboard's died (now using USB keyboard) and at present I have an oversensitive mouse so doing the most basic of things is nigh on impossible with this laptop, Many thanks, Kind Regards, –Davey2010Talk 13:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010 ✓ Done. Sorry to hear about your computer troubles. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mdaniels5757, Many thanks for your help, I've had to go to A&E this week so now with the laptop being stupid I feel like this week's just getting better and better, Sadly it's my birthday tomorrow too so at this point I'm just expecting something else to go wrong lol, They say it happens in 3s lol, Anyway thanks again for your help greatly appreciated :) –Davey2010Talk 15:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File: Mausolée des Rois numides dit le Medracen -2.JPG

Hello, Could an administrator revoke User: Nadjib Ouchen's modification on this File: Mausolée des Rois numides dit le Medracen -2.JPG, this image was awarded with the 2nd prize in the national contest of Algeria in Wiki Loves Monuments 2015.--86.212.144.180 15:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. @Nadjib Ouchen: feel free to upload your image separately, under a different name. Best, —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge#/media/File:Stonehenge_render.jpg Isn't the solid red arrow pointing toward the rising sun rather than NORTH? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveC1 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DaveC1: , yes I would agree. The rising sun at some special moment (the longest or shortest day or the start of spring or mid summer? I do not remember...sorry... it would be told in the article). This information is added by User:Sheila1988, perhaps they can give the rationale. Elly (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Not the right noticeboard for this type of question, but …) Summer solstice (longest day), hence the northernmost possible sunrise at that latitude, roughly north-east. So I would say the arrows are oriented to the axis of the monument. Conversely I believe the rendering itself is oriented to the cardinal directions, with the northernmost & southernmost points on the ring respectively nearest the top & bottom of the picture.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I misread the image, will change the note now. Sheila1988 (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category deletion request

Hi, Could admin delete all categories at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?target=82.78.75.0%2F24&namespace=14&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&start=&end=&limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions except for Category:Graphic design logos if possible ? - All are empty and all have been created by a sock/LTA, I planned to use VFC but just realised that's for files unfortunately, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Working AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010 Empty categories deleted, leaving Category:Geely logos, Category:UPC Broadband, Category:Graphic design logos, Category:Tesla logos. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My sincere apologies AntiCompositeNumber I'd somehow missed the subcat ones and the CFD one should've been excluded too so my sincere apologies for this - Thank for looking at these and thanks for deleting them - your help's greatly appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move rename some CC-related images

I think it would help if some of our CC-related images were move-renamed. Some of our super important images are using a hyphen after the CC and this is not recommended by CC. See, for example, the Abbreviations section of their style guide). For instance, File:CC-BY-SA icon.svg should be renamed to File:CC BY-SA icon.svg. There's a whole bunch of similar images that could be moved (leaving redirect of course). The problem is that the current version helps "mis-educate" people in the way to write CC licences. We shouldn't be doing that. CC and its licences are so important to the project that it makes sense to go the extra mile to make sure we do everything we can to "dot our i's and cross our t's" in regards to such technicalities. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block request 2

Hi, Could an admin please block 82.78.75.120 - They keep adding logo categories to images without any consensus, They were blocked under a different IP and were warned twice on 2 seperate IPs, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010 what were the other IPs? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mdaniels5757, User talk:82.78.75.105 and 82.79.62.88, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010 Blocked 82.78.75.0/24 for a month. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant many thanks Daniel greatly appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 10:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant many thanks Mdaniels as always much appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request to restore files

Please, restore following files as they have received a VRTS premission:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 --TohaomgTohaomg (talk) 06:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tohaomg: ✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spammer

Special:Contributions/Thisdayinfo. --Palosirkka (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:KostyaMasterpiece and uploads of made-up flags

User:KostyaMasterpiece has uploaded numerous images of purported flags that are clearly their own creation and appear to contravene COM:SCOPE, i.e., these images have no reasonable purpose and this user is essentially using Commons as their own personal image repository, as indicated by their user page and other edits (e.g., [10] and [11]). I have blocked them on enwiki for introducing deliberate misinformation and feel that some action needs to be taken here, and felt this was the best venue rather than trying to tag each upload individually. Thanks. --Kinu (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked and nuked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! --Kinu (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel request

Hi, Could someone revdel this edit and this edit please - Offensive obscenities in Spanish, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --AFBorchert (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks -AFBorchert greatly appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for MassMessage for delivering to Commons

Hello there, I would like to request for MassMessage senders status for the following accounts: Athikhun.suw and Karto1. This is to have a channel to promote Wiki Science Competition 2021 in Thailand, particularly to previous participants of photo contests held by WMTH, via Meta:Special:MassMessage. I have requested this on Meta, but since the message will be delivered to the talk page on Commons, I would like to ask on here as well. We would like to ask for the status for at least 3 months, and here are the sample message and list of recipients. Thank you in advance for considering. --Karto1 (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Commons does not have a userright for MassMessage senders. Nevertheless, you can request sending MassMessage as many times as needed here at this very board and they will be sent in less than of 24 hours by an admin including me on behalf of the aforementioned users.
Now please tell us in whose name this message should be sent to the list of recipients. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please send the message in Ganchai 's name. Thank you for the reply, and I will refer to this board if we need MMS in the future. --Karto1 (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Karto1: There is no user with the name Ganchai. Please specify a username for the signature: Athikhun.suw or Karto1? 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, please go with Karto1. --Karto1 (talk) 10:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Next time, please format the list of recipients like this: User:Karto1/WSC 2021-TH/MMS and put the message on Commons rather than Meta. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Karto1 (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An important matter

I've contributed hundreds of articles to Wikipedia but many subjects lack images -- whether people or places or things. During 13+ years, after finishing an article, I consult the Commons database and there's nothing there for me, so my Wikipedia articles are blank, boring-looking text. Images make an article look appealing and beautiful and fun to read. There's plenty of material out there on the web but we can't use it because we rightfully assume it's copyright-protected. I suppose most of us have run into this problem time and again.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BUT suppose that we can create something new. We can use paints and pencils and pastels and watercolor and computer programs to change the original image into something new that we create, something that captures the essence of the subject, whether a person or place or thing or whatever, but something that is similar enough to the original for purposes of recognize-ability, and something that communicates, visually, what the subject is about. By modifying the image, we don't violate copyrights, and yet we can communicate what a subject is about. We can bring beauty and color to visually-boring pages of text.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consider, too, that all art is derivative; for example, there was a woman named Lisa who had a face, and Da Vinci came along and made a painting of her face, that is, his painting was derived from her face, putting in a different background, also derived from what he saw in nature; subsequent artists have taken Da Vinci's Mona Lisa and made new creations, derived from Da Vinci's work. It's how it's done. All art is derivative, and there is no such thing as art which isn't derived from something in the real world or previously created art in the real world. As long as something is new and is different enough from the original then we should be able to use it without violating any copyright restrictions. We Wikipedians can do what artists do -- we can derive something new from something old, by whatever means (paint / pencil / computers) that is different enough from the original which communicates the subject. It's how we can stay true to the copyright rules while advancing our encyclopedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there is discussion about six such derivations of mine (look halfway down the page). I created them using paints and pastels and watercolors and computer programs. They are new. They don't violate any copyright rules. They are useful to Wikipedia since there are no other images of these people in the database. They are faithful reproductions of the people depicted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this issue is important and deserves to be seriously debated by the Wikimedia community.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer: Regarding your edits at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tomwsulcer:
  1. Administrators can still see images after they are deleted, and will undelete them if appropriate.
  2. Please do not edit the discussion after it has been closed, but rather use the proper forum to request undeletion.
Brianjd (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't just that these are all derivative, but derivative of non-free content. None of the things you're describing are appropriate analogies because none of the things you derived are copyrightable content. That you made non-free works look a bit different is not the transformativeness that is required. You can't wave a wand and make someone's non-free photograph or video usable here when it otherwise would not have been. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CoffeeCrumbs, I continue to think that transformations which are different enough from the original from which they are derived are suitable for inclusion if they impart useful information and are faithful to the original and meet Wikimedia's other criteria. The issue is above my pay grade, of course; it's a community-wide decision.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you Brianjd for letting me know this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Mona Lisa is a derived creation by Da Vinci.
I've been trying to step back from the particulars of my six deleted derivative creations and I've been trying to make sense of the bigger picture. It's weird, so let me try to explain...--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all understand copyright as an incentive for artists and writers to make new creations that are fresh and advance the human enjoyment of life. For example, the Mona Lisa. Vermeer's Milkmaid. The logic behind copyrights, of course, is that the creator is entitled to enjoy the profits of the creation, which is the incentive spurring their effort. Without the incentive, Da Vinci and Vermeer might have not painted them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Centuries pass, and new technologies have come along, particularly photography in the mid nineteenth century, and now powerful computer technology and graphics software in our time, and of course, the Internet. I can understand how governments make rules about copyrights, again so content creators can be properly reimbursed, but in a practical sense, these rules are extremely difficult to enforce. Technology has led to a huge proliferation of images everywhere throughout the web, and Wikimedia is one small part of this huge proliferation of web-based images. For us Wikipedia contributors, and especially for our readers, these images are helpful in illustrating ideas which advance human knowledge, with its charts, images, drawings, GIFs, and so forth, that help readers of Wikipedia understand more about what they're reading. They're valuable as information in that sense.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the exponential growth of images, almost all web images have no monetary value. It's supply and demand at work. Trillions of images. Nobody wants to buy them. They're out there. They can be copied in a split second with a few commands on a keyboard. They're like air. Any subject, any person, type in a few words into the Google search browser, click 'images' and boom -- we see dozens and hundreds of images. And for free. Nobody got paid. Nobody expected to get paid. Maybe there are a few cases where there is some monetary reward system going on, such as a newspaper which pays its photographers to shoot pictures of something like a car crash, and we Wikipedians restrict copying of the newspaper's image to make it easier for the newspaper to attract subscribers; that is, by restricting access, we help the newspaper in a small way; but I would continue to argue that the picture, as such, has virtually no monetary-value-in-itself, in that nobody would want to pay for the photograph of a car crash. The newspaper photographer got paid by the newspaper staff and has already been compensated.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But because of legal standards and often arcane rules, and maybe a few past cases of copyright infringement, Wikimedia got sued, even though its essential mission is educational and good and designed to help enlighten humankind. Wikimedia has become overly hesitant about accepting any uploaded images, particularly of people and artwork. Wikimedia assumes all images out there on the web are copyrighted (even though most aren't) and that all images out there on the web are valuable as money-makers (when they are not). So bots check every incoming image with what's out there on the web, and if it finds a match, it kicks it out, often automatically. Wikimedia presumes that there is some money-making purpose behind these images when there is no such purpose. If Wikimedia did accept some uploads, it would not be like we're ripping anybody off; rather, it's just kowtowing to the fear of a hypothetical possible lawsuit.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So the result is a giant mishmash of purposes and a headache for everybody all around, with our community's rules built around flawed assumptions, such that it hobbles our ability to contribute again and again. The Wikimedia database is hobbled.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me offer an example.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the article about Charlie van Over. He's a notable chef. He's the husband of a friend of mine. But Wikimedia Commons has no pictures of him for my article, so the article is rather drab-looking hunks of plain text. A reader, wanting to know about him, won't get to see what he looks like, unless they check the web. He's in his 80s, now, and it is a major struggle to find images of him that are (1) not out there on the web already and ones where the (2) photographer and copyright holder can be tracked down to secure permissions. I'm in a quandary. I would like my readers to know what he looked like. I realize that I can't simply copy something directly. But I can create new artwork, derived from what's out there, combining things in a new way using paints and pastels and smartphone cameras and graphics imaging software, to faithfully illustrate what he looked like, to impart information to our users, to create an original new composition which doesn't violate any copyright rules. It's new stuff. The background is new. So is the whole image. Wikimedia can't be sued because it is an original creation. It solves the problem of remaining true to the copyright rules while remaining true to our mission to impart information. It is not ripping anybody off. It is not crimping book sales or harming any publishing rights. It is a faithful reproduction of his face in terms of recognizability. I'm doing what every artist does and has done, even Da Vinci, and even what Wikipedia contributors routinely do -- the Mona Lisa is, in fact, retouched. My friend, the wife of Mr. van Over, saw the image and thanked me, although now it has been deleted, again hobbling the encyclopedia. I see myself as a good contributor here and it seems to me that these nitpicky rules block me from advancing our collective project here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to assert that this is an important matter. I propose that faithful artistic creations which are derived from previous images and artwork, be allowed if the new creations are (1) substantially different from their source material and (2) faithfully illustrate the subject.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll save you some time and all of us a lot of reading right now: "it makes a WP article better" is irrelevant to whether an image should be considered within commons license policy. A non-free image doesn't become free because you like the image. A non-free image might become usable in an article if it meets Fair-Use criteria, but that already outside of Commons's scope, and you'd have to take it up with a specific Wikipedia's site policies. You'll need to focus on license/legal policy of the image itself, not potential uses.
Open-license isn't just about depriving a creator of potential substantial monetary income or other tangible value, or whether we (as third parties) think it might. Copyright/license laws are very clear that a work becomes protected when it is created for a certain timeframe, regardless of for what purpose the creator had created it at that time. And the license-owner is allowed but not required to permit others to use it in various ways. We don't control that, we merely have to obey it. DMacks (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomwsulcer: Hi, and welcome. If you can't get compliant licenses, the photos (or derivatives of them) may still be uploaded to English Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F because we don't allow Fair Use here.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the real deal isn't allowed here then what makes you think computer-edited-derived images would be allowed here ?, Get real Thomas. Either upload the real deal or don't upload at all, In a real world I would us to be able to host ALL images irrespective of licences but unfortunately we can't. –Davey2010Talk 18:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"OK, so we're not allowed to upload the entire text of the Harry Potter books. But I have this *other* completely totally super-independent book about Larry Kotter, who went to Mogwart's School of Sorcery and fought off the shadow sorcerer Moldevort!" CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm an original creation, like Rickey Rouse and Monald Muck." -- Shary Bobbins, a British nanny in The Simpsons (Season 8, Episode 13). DMacks (talk) 07:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The image of Harry Potter is OUT THERE on the web but all Commons can show is his costume.
  • Okay, I got it, even derivatives are not allowed in Commons, even when there are no alternatives available and the 'original' content has no monetary value. Still, it seems to me as if Commons' rules are overly strict, as if it is the only site on the Internet trying to respect rules about copyrights. It's like the Internet as a whole is a giant free-for-all where everything goes. Commons is like a teenage girl trying to remain a virgin while the rest of her classmates are enjoying raucous and unbridled sex. For example, Commons will kick out the Harry Potter book as CoffeeCrumbs wrote, but the full text is [ out there on the Internet].--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's like we're driving on the New Jersey Turnpike, when the speed limit sign says "55 miles per hour" -- almost all drivers are going 70mph BUT the Commons car is plodding along at 55mph, causing traffic tie-ups, honking horns, and accidents. The custom is 70mph and the law is 55mph. On the turnpike, custom supersedes law, and traffic moves at 70mph; similarly, in the web world, the custom is the proliferation of images, and the law is the protection of copyrights, and again, custom supersedes law. It's how it is. Accordingly, Commons adhering to rules that nobody else seems to follow hobbles the encyclopedia; while the Internet is well aware what Xyla Foxlin looks like, the Wikipedia article is image-less. And, my attempts to add images here and then having them deleted without much discussion, I feel like a driver going 56mph who gets a nasty speeding ticket.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you also complain that NPOs do not make distributions? But other corporations pay hundreds of millions in dividends! In your focus on illustration, have you not noticed the logo in the upper left of each article says "The Free Encyclopedia"--where free is libre, not gratis? The WMF has elected deliberately to limit the content they host (to libre) for philosophical reasons; that some projects host non-free content under fair use is controversial and resolutely not even an option for the Commons. Эlcobbola talk 14:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is like a teenage girl trying to remain a virgin while the rest of her classmates are enjoying raucous and unbridled sex is just a... baffling... thing to say. I removed the link to the Harry Potter Pdf, as it is copyright violating and that content should not be linked to on Wikimedia sites. Moneytrees (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's like we're driving on the New Jersey Turnpike, when the speed limit sign says "55 miles per hour" -- almost all drivers are going 70mph BUT the Commons car is plodding along at 55mph, causing traffic tie-ups, honking horns, and accidents. Okay, there's a couple of minor things wrong with this sort of thinking, and one big thing.
I drive on a heavily trafficked highway regularly, and I've driven the NJ Turnpike enough to know that mine isn't any different. A car traveling the speed limit categorically does not cause traffic or accidents. And honking horns are hardly something to get worked up over, even if driving the speed limit might cause a small number of people to honk at you.
But the biggest problem is simpler: People drive that fast because they can get away with it. They're mostly anonymous and mostly not under observation. That is quite clearly not true of WP. We can't overstep copyright law -and make no mistake, what you're advocating here is that we break the law- because we will get called out over the vast, vast majority of cases, and we will be easy to find and hold to account. There is an entire world of difference between "that black sedan, maybe a Hyundai or a Toyota" and "one of the best known and most trafficked websites in existence, operated openly by a non-profit organization and an enormous team of volunteers."
It would take just one big lawsuit to force the WMF to close up shop. Just one. A dozen smaller lawsuits could do the same. We'd never get the chance to find out if a hundred tiny lawsuits would, because we'd be gone the way of the dodo long before we got to the point of a hundred lawsuits being sorted out. Sorry if I sound overly harsh, I don't mean to be. I'm just trying to be honest with you, in the hopes that you can recognize how this request looks to the broader community. MjolnirPants (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to contribute to Wikimedia Commons is like being stuck in Franz Kafka's The Trial world.
Well MjolnirPants thank you for your explanation. I agree that the community's fear of lawsuits is real, even as it clearly hobbles Wikipedia's usefulness. But there has to be a better way than contributors and volunteers contorting ourselves into weird shapes to try to adhere to a strict code when the rest of the world doesn't. The world is driving 70mph; we're driving 55mph. If all drivers go 70mph, even though the law says 55mph, and police don't enforce the law, then the posted 55mph law isn't really the real law, and 70mph is the real law. Perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation should hire a legal team, skilled in copyright law, to monitor cases involving copyright issues, cases involving other entities so there's no lawsuit danger to the project. As technology changes, and the law and governments respond to these changes, new standards will undoubtedly emerge -- if they haven't already -- standards that facilitate the reasonable sharing of images and information -- and the attorneys can advise the project accordingly. Until then, yes, I suppose, we're stuck in a Kafkaesque bureaucracy.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, this thread reads like your efforts to vent about Commons not working the way you think it should, and frankly, that has no business here. Also please don't ping me back to this discussion any more. I don't see any real benefit to continuing it. MjolnirPants (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is patently wrong. Youtube and Google literally deal with *millions* of takedown notices per day. Any large company with any kind of user-posted media is going to get a lot of these. It's not some odd thing that only Wikipedia Commons is doing. Compliance is easy: just don't post things that aren't yours that don't have explicit rights to post. And don't slap images through a couple Photoshop filters in an attempt to "launder" the intellectual property of others. There's no conversation that can possibly happen here that will override legal compliance, so there's no need to continue this. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyright law can be convoluted, often annoying or frustrating, and in some cases seems simply absurd or idiotic. Commons works to obey it not because we love all the restrictions and bureaucracy, but because it is a project for FREE LICENSED media. That's what Commons is. Despite all the restrictions of copyrights, despite the long list of specific things we cannot have here, rather than moan about various things we can't do at a particular time, we instead focus on creating an ever expanding wealth of FREE LICENSED media - the possibilities and wonders of which are not just vast, but infinite. If we see that such-and-so is still under copyright, we can put a note the Commons of the future as to when it falls into the public domain. So we cannot use it yet today? Noted. Instead we use the trillions things we CAN use today. Marvelous! -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of times I see Tomwsulcer mention "different enough", but "different enough" is very hard to assess outside a court of law, which means you are opening yourself up to a court case, which wether u are in the right or not, is an experience ppl generally want to avoid. Just ask the guy who made the Obama hope poster who had to settle with the Associated Press. I understand the sentiments expressed and while the sentiments in practice might make sense, in the USA (and other parts of the western world) they simply do not match with copyright law. Tom Scott has a great video on this called: "Youtube's copyright system isn't broken, the world's is", which is definitely advised viewing for anyone who wants to understand a bit more as to why Commons has to be relatively strict, because at Commons we don't only use, we license so that OTHERS can re-use (a much higher responsibility than just using). "there has to be a better way", yes you should campaign to change the laws, instead of attempting to circumvent them. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 15:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to second the value of the video link TheDJ provided. I've been producing commercial and commissioned artwork and other IP for almost three decades with the result that I have dealt with copyright law many, many times, and Tom Scott demonstrates a very good grasp of many of the issues. I'd also like to mention the Youtube channel LegalEagle, who is a copyright lawyer by profession, specifically the following videos: LegalEagle answers 12tone's questions about copyright, Massive changes to copyright? How Led Zeppelin Saved Katy Perry and Extinguished Flame ft. Adam Neely and How Taylor Swift (Legally) Changed Music Forever ft. Rick Beato, all of which cover topics germane to the OP's questions/complaints. The last two specifically touch upon the "different enough" question. MjolnirPants (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent disruptive editing by "Mahammad tt"

User "Mahammad tt" was indeffed on eng.wiki for disruptive editing.[12] He has tried, on numerous occassions, to pursue the disruptive editorial pattern at Commons. He was blocked for this on no less than three occassions at Commons.[13] Today, he tried to pursue the same disruptive pattern, hugely inflating area figues for Azeri Turkic speakers at this map, essentially restoring edits made by a blocked sockpuppet (HistoryofHumann[14]) Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that this user is not here to build this project, just like he wasn't at eng.wiki. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The same modus operandi as before: first he gets reverted and warned, then waits some time and tries to do the same disruption again. Last time he waited two months (May–July), this time 3,5 months. --Orijentolog (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done I have blocked this user indefinitely. Someone who has been blocked 3 times already isn't here to contribute and this time they can't claim they made a mistake Gbawden (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:DawoodSavage.jpg

I doubt that this is freely licensed, since youtube is a copyrighted platform. Can someone look into this? TomStar81 (Talk) 12:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TomStar81: I don't see a licence mentioned on any of his pages, so is assumed to be copyright and needs a VRTS permission, which I will now tag. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vulgar language and vandalisms of admin!!!

Seems like I have no choice and I need to report a disruptive behaviour of your fellow admin Davey2010 who instead of having a peaceful conversation about controversial subject decided to take a vulgar, aggressive approach using twice an unacceptable language [15] [16] and removing my posts on his discussion site thinking that his answer means "problem is solved" [17]. He didn't even let me answer, just removed a thread like a troll. What the hell is that, how admin board member can act like this? Is this behaviour you want to promote throughout Wikimedia Commons, having this kind of troll on a board? Michge (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A). I'm not an admin. B) I didn't appreciate your tone in your first message or in your second message so excuse me if I no longer wished to conversate with you. C) You reinstated your post for the 2nd time to which I replied[18] .... so why we here ?. You complained over my use of the f word in your second message so I wished you a fucking wonderful day ..... just being nice. But seriously we were discussing it so why we even here?. –Davey2010Talk 17:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth noting whilst I'm not blameless you've so far called me a clown, ignorant, a troll AND an admin (I'm extremely offended with the last one!) so you're a fine one to complain about me. We're both as silly as each other. –Davey2010Talk 17:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Michge: consider reading w:WP:BOOMERANG. Despite an indefinite block for disruption on en.wiki and numerous blocks for personal attacks on pl.wiki, you seem to believe clown, ignorant, troll are acceptable on WMF projects. Please review COM:AGF and COM:BP, and note you will be blocked if this continues. Эlcobbola talk 17:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dude literally uses "fuck" word towards me twice and removes discussion thread, intentionally taking me away possibility to answer. Your only answer are personal picks only about me, without any reference to the subject. Ignorant isn't an offence. Troll isn't an offence, it is a name for an disruptive action of that guy above. Is is all you have to say about? I get it, Wikimedia Commons allows you to write "get the fuck off", but you can't call somebody an ignorant if he intentionally ignores your arguments, because you did something bad as well in the past. Wow. I'm out. Michge (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I issued a block for one week for personal attacks and harassment.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

page.link

i was trying to import these great satellite photos from https://www.flickr.com/photos/sentinelhub/ , but their descriptions all have a link that contains "page.link", which is in the spam filter? is it possible to let me temporarily override this?

it's not practical to remove the entire descriptions because of that link, which can be done after importing, too. RZuo (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this domain is not listed in our blacklist, it is listed in the global blacklist. So probably you should ask there. --jdx Re: 07:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done: Added \bsentinelshare\.page\.link\b to whitelist. --Achim (talk) 07:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I forgot that there are such things as whitelists. Face-smile.svg --jdx Re: 07:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
thx a lot! i have imported all that could be imported. RZuo (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP block request

Hi, Could an admin block 46.97.176.161 please - They keep adding car logos to logo categories despite being told not too/to get consensus,
Previous AN threads here and here - They've also been rangeblocked twice (Special:Contributions/82.78.75.0/24 and Special:Contributions/86.126.160.0/24), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 11:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you've had two IPs blocked on your request and now you want a third. You've linked to no discussion of this. I can see no-one else having a problem with these edits, just you. So just what is wrong with [19], adding a category of vehicle logo brands (Acura) to the categories for the related cars and the company making them? The nearest I can see is User talk:82.78.75.105 where they're told they're wrong, there's no discussion, and they're blocked with the splendidly Kafkaesque reason "You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of {{{1}}} for the following reason: {{{2}}}."!
Whatever the issues over this change, I can see no substantial discussion of this, no-one except you opposing this, and it's just another case of "IPs aren't real editors". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of coming in with your size 12s thinking you know best why don't you re-read this thread? here and here are the previous AN threads. I left them a message twice on 1 IP telling them to get consensus but instead they chose to ignore me and then they've just continued to hop from IP to another. I have no real desire to go through and comb their every contribution every single day under the various IPs they're using, If they cannot discuss voluntarily then they can (or should) be blocked until they finally give in and have a conversation with either myself or someone. Also as of writing this they've used 16 IPs so we're not talking about someone who's used only one or two IPs - If they cannot communicate then that's not my problem. –Davey2010Talk 12:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Again my only issue with this IP is them adding "logos on cars" to logo categories ie this, Unfortunately they've also made constructive edits such as here but again I'm not going through a socking IPs contributions every day and reverting non-constructive edits - they can either edit constructively or have all of their edits reverted until a time where they can discuss it,
Again I asked them back in September to stop but they chose not to reply ... so I'm not going to keep going to their talkpages every 3 months in the hope they'll bother to communicate with me - If they wanted to communicate they would've done so back in September. –Davey2010Talk 12:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posting the same dead link four times doesn't really further your claim. Especially not when you're trying to pull rank on other editors for their poor communication skills. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've edit conflicted with you - I hope my reply directly above helps understand why I've not left the IP message after message after message. By all means Andy you're more than welcome to try with the IP but as I said above (which you've not seen yet) if they cared about discussing it they would've done so back in September. –Davey2010Talk 12:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what is wrong with [20]? I see no problem with putting car brand logos under that car. You recognise yourself that their linking a vector version was appropriate, and yet you reverted it anyway.
Now what is a "car logo", except a badge put prominently on a car like this. You're into a really subtle question of content organisation to revert that. Should it even be kept, but in a separate category? I'd certainly see it as something in the "I wouldn't always do that myself, but I certainly wouldn't revert it" category.
Yet you've turned this into "total reversion of all edits, kill it with fire", and you can cite no support from other editors to back that up. Even if (as is regular) they're totally uncommunicative, that's still not a justification for bulk reversions. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed because like I said I'm not going to check their contributions every single day to make sure they're not doing what they've been told not to do. After writing the above message I decided to stop reverting but the moment they start with the logo malarky I'll wholesale revert all of their edits. They can either stop doing what they've been told not to do or they can waste their time making edits that will be reverted it's their choice Andy.
Again that's for the IP to get consensus on not me. I haven't turned this into anything - The IP was told one simple thing and yet they continued and continued and continued with their controversial edits .... the IP has made a mess for themselves certainly didn't need my help.
Lastly Andy as can be here I left them a message but guess what .... no reply ... now you can understand why I don't bother after the first message .... because it's a waste of time.
If the IP isn't interested in discussing their edits then there's not much me or you can do about it - We're a collaborative project and so as such they can either discuss their edits as required or they can keep socking, keep being reverted and keep being blocked until such a time where they do discuss it. –Davey2010Talk 15:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File

I came across this File:The Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee and Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal B.S. Dhanoa and the Wing Commander, Abhinandan Varthaman in a MiG-21 Trainer aircraft, at Air Force Station Pathankot, Punjab on September 02, 2019.jpg and it's cropped version. Can an admin verify its Abuse filter log, patrol log and uploader information or license review. Thanks --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 18:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same person, different IPs

Same person is deleting notice about deletion discussion of a file using different IPs on File:Republic of south azerbaijan.png. Range block might help. CuriousGolden (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP 37.160.0.91 – COM:CIVIL and UCoC violations

This user is engaged in inappropriate deletion requests and abuse. I believe their behaviour is disruptive, and repeatedly violates the UCoC and COM:CIVIL:

  • Gaslighting of neo-pagan Wikimedians (UCoC § 3.2. “Maliciously causing someone to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding with the objective to win an argument”). Quotes: “Unuseful symbol invented by a user to represent their imaginary religion”, “just the user's own imaginary religion”. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] [7], [8] &c.
  • Ageism (UCoC § 3.1). Quote: “Wikimedia Commons is not a repository for children drawings”. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] &c. – Mrakia 03:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mrakia The UCOC, while enacted by Board mandate, is not currently enforceable on Commons. Just putting that out there. You are also required to notify anyone you discuss here, it does not appear that that has been done. The anonymous editor does not appear to have previously been warned, and stopped editing once Achim asked them to. I see no reason to take administrative action at this time. You are welcome to give your opinions at the relevant deletion requests. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The UCOC, while enacted by Board mandate, is not currently enforceable on Commons. — Not yet, but the same toxic behaviour pattern is described in the Commons’ CoC (COM:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL b, d). I wrote the notification as fast as possible.
    Thank you for your comment. – Mrakia 05:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the same as 37.160.0.91 who edited yesterday. My IP has changed. My intention was not to be uncivil and to offend others. The language of my nominations was a bit harsh, but I think that the motives for the nominations are objective. Also, I did not target any specific social group but I sieved some categories and nominated those files that I found out of place on Commons (Mrakia can see that I also nominated files representing agnosticism and files which have nothing to do with religion). Most of the files that I nominated are objectively out of COM:SCOPE, against COM:EDUSE and COM:NOTHOST, as some of them are low quality duplicates of other files while some others are clear inventions by users not representing any existing idea, concept, or fact. Users are free to invent their own ideas and concepts and upload them on their own personal blogs, but I don't think that Wikimedia Commons should function as a personal blog.--37.163.55.52 15:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to note here that having gone through a considerable amount of your deletion requests, a lot of them have considerable issues. Sadly you cannot be objective and neither can I, nobody can, we just try to moderate our subjectivity. A lot of your comments can be read as derisive and that's not okay. Some of your judgment is, in my opinion, on point, but a lot of it, again, my opinion, is not sound. I would suggest you work with some more experienced users, perhaps even create an account to hide your IP, and refine your interest in contributing in a better manner than current. ~Gwennie🐈💬 📋⦆ 01:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just came across 223.255.225.69 engaging in similar behaviour:
Extremely low quality unuseful drawing created by a user. Wikimedia Commons is not a repository for children drawings. High quality versions of the same symbol are already available.
For all the insults, they apparently forgot to check whether the file was in use: it is.
I thought at first that this was the same user as discussed above. But after typing this comment, I see that the DR I quoted is their only recent contribution, so I am not so sure now. Brianjd (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked this IP for 3 months. It was already blocked last September for a similar issue. DR closed. Yann (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request to censor and revdel

Good day. May I request some admin to blur and censor the ff. images showing poster/tarps that are DW-violations?

I chose to request both here since I'm busy both in real life and here: as of this writing I'm at a break-time of our online college classes (next subject starts later in the afternoon, Philippine Standard Time), which allows me to do some transfer of some of Patrick Roque's images (depicting general sceneries and public domain public works) from enwiki. Thanks. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is necessary; how is it different from Commons:Deletion requests/File:17723 EscherMuseum.jpg? -- King of ♥ 02:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. I nominated one photo for regular deletion. The others probably can stay in Commons. Taivo (talk) 08:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Посмішка амінь.jpg

I ask you to immediately delete this vandal photo and block its author and IP for life. Thanks. --Jphwra (talk) 12:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jphwra ✓ Done thanks to Billinghurst!   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving with overwriting needed

Category:Barry of six argent and sable --> Category:Barry of 6 argent and sable. After that I can close the related CFD--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Convert it to a {{Category redirect}}, and fix any WD linking at that space. No requirement for it to be moved.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VRT request

Hi, please close this kinda urgent DR, as we received the necessary confirmation e-mail. Thanks, Bencemac (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion attempt of redirect tries to delete the file, javascript issue?

Hi all. When attempting to delete a file redirect File:Josef.jpg the deletion clearly stated the pagename then listed the redirected file as "you are about to delete (the redirect target)" (see phab:F34739750). If you undertake the deletion, you are then presented with the redirect target page in the deletion process which does allow you to stop if being observant. I had to utilise AWB to delete it, which would indicate that we have one of our javascripts in the deletion process running wild. I can see similar behaviour at the redirect File:Neuvy Saint Sepulchre F PM 009591.jpg. Who is the expert here that I need to poke?  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I don't see that I have any particular gadgets operational for these beyond the discussion closers/helpers.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Found that this is not a Commons only issue, this is a mediawiki issue.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst and Yann: Would a URL like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File;Josef.jpg?action=delete have worked?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 05:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff, no, that is where the problem shows, it is the actions of the MW interface that are the issue, as AWB works with the API. Don't worry, I know the tricks, been here doing this for a while now.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overwriting moves

Overwriting moves to cleanup Category:Requested moves

  1. Category:Acciona Trasmediterránea --> Category:Trasmediterránea

--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: none of these need to be overwriting moves. Go to the Wikidata item, change it from one to the other. Separately recategorise the pages, and make the changes to respective categories.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done I have updated, though it doesn't need an admin.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: yeah, manually everyone can do it, but I guessed that we need to retain page history of https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Acciona_Trasmediterr%C3%A1nea&action=history Actually, the page history is not gone, but it is not easy to find it under the redirect's page--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What value are you seeing in the page history of a category? What is it doing for us? What are we gaining in moving it around?  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File redirect

Hi, Could an admin delete the redirect File:2010 Yamaha XP500 (HN60 GXG) rear.jpg please as didn't mean for it to be created, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: Looks like {{SD|G2}} to me. You can add it yourself if you agree. Brianjd (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is even stated in the renaming guideline. Brianjd (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting stroke order DR closes

Some time ago, seven deletion requests were filed for GIFs depicting the stroke order of Chinese characters that were uploaded from a third party site that did not publish them under a free license. All of the deletion requests had the same premise and were linked to each other, and significant discussion was shared between them.

Discussion regarding all of the files was also held at the village pump.

Ruthven closed six of these requests as Keep. Notably, several of the closing summaries mentioned COM:INUSE, which is not a valid rationale for copyright-related deletion discussions.

Jameslwoodward then closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:碎-order.gif, the DR with the most discussion, as delete.

All of the DRs were nominated by the same person, and all of the files were uploaded by the same person from the same site under the same rationale. Every DR had a link to a centralized discussion. As there was no substantial difference between the DRs, they should have all been closed at the same time and with the same reasoning. I asked the closing administrators to come to a mutual understanding of how these should be closed, but they have declined to take any action or respond to my request. Therefore, I am asking that an administrator here reassess these DRs and close them all the same way. Thank you.

For full disclosure, I !voted keep in the discussions, but I am partial to Jameslwoodward's closing; it seemed to be more in line with policy.  Mysterymanblue  01:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This thorough, well-written post should serve as a model of how to handle this type of situation. But I have a few concerns:
  1. This should have been done as a mass DR. At least the last six DRs, which contain nothing but a link to a Village Pump discussion, should have been done as one mass DR.
  2. Ruthven did state in one of their closing summaries that the files are PD; by your own reasoning, this could be applied to the other files as well.
  3. FanNihongo posted on Ruthven's talk page after this issue was posted here. @FanNihongo: I suggest you keep all the discussion here from now on.
I really should comment on the actual issue here, the copyright status of these files, but I don't feel qualified to do that.
Brianjd (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should have been done as a mass DR. That being said, the discussions had a good amount of participation, and the participants understood that what applied to one file would apply to the others. The closing administrator also clearly saw the other DRs. A unified close was and is still possible, regardless of the annoying fact that the nominator incorrectly filed several different DRs with the same rationale. Ruthven should ideally be providing a complete closing summary for each file - regardless, the more important issue is the fact that the files were closed contrarily, not that an admin didn't copy paste the rationale between similar closes.  Mysterymanblue  06:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am agree with what Brianjd says, and I am sorry, I do not know how to mass DR. But I will learn about it, for the next time.
I want to clarify that that this post on Ruthven's talkpage, is an apelation, there I explain my other reasons for deleting those files.
Well, I guess is now on the hands of a more qualified users, to solve this issue. Whatever they decide, I will accept it. FanNihongo (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, maybe the rationale was a little approximate in some of the DR, being all the same :) The main closing rationale is at Commons:Deletion requests/File:只-order.gif and it emerges from what seemed to me the general consensus. In other words, if I create myself an animation of the drawing/painting order of these characters, I would not violate any creative work, because the correct drawing order is PD. Thus, these gifs do not carry enough creative contents to be copyrighted. Btw, all these files should have been put in the same DR, and not spread in several pages. Ruthven (msg) 09:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of the fundamental premises of this discussion is flawed. The file that I deleted was nominated on 20 December 2020 (UTC). The six that Ruthven kept were nominated on 1 March 2021 (UTC). I did not see any of the Ruthven closings when I closed the one and I doubt that Ruthven saw the earlier one.

The decision seemed fairly obvious to me -- while the USA does not allow copyright for calligraphy, some Asian countries do. The law in Vietnam is not clear, so PRP applies.

Perhaps the best solution is to restore the file that I deleted and nominate them all for deletion in one DR, pinging all of the participants in the various discussions. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: "In other words, if I create myself an animation of the drawing/painting order of these characters, I would not violate any creative work, because the correct drawing order is PD. Thus, these gifs do not carry enough creative contents to be copyrighted." The logic in those statements seems misguided. I can take a picture of the Statue of Liberty (a PD object). It's my own work and does not violate anybody else's creative work. It does not follow that my picture does not carry enough creative content to be copyrighted. My picture has a copyright, but it is a weak copyright. I cannot use my copyright to block similar pictures, but I can use my copyright to block someone else using my picture. It's well known that ordinary characters are PD, but where is the authority that says the animation of drawing a PD character is PD. Statues are 3D (x, y, z) objects; animations are 3D (x, y, t) objects. Glrx (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Glrx: Pen width and angle are other dimensions.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pen width is essentially determined by the font, so I don't think it qualifies as a creative choice by the creator of the GIF.  Mysterymanblue  07:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, the timing of the DRs certainly is a factor that mitigates the oversight of all the DR links in the central discussion. Of course, the more important issue is getting consistent guidance on the copyright issue, not the relatively minor mistake that an administrator may have committed. Restoring the file you deleted and redoing the DR is a fine solution to me, though I question the point of getting more discussion on this. This discussion has been open for a long time and was posted to the village pump that more than enough discussion has been had on this front. I would like a more definitive answer, but how much more is there really to say?  Mysterymanblue  08:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianjd: @Ruthven: @Jameslwoodward: I have and idea: let me explain: as I explained I work on new versions of these files, what if I upload new versions(I am talking hypothetically for now). Now that I did explain my idea I have questions. Would that help to solve this issue? or would that complicate the things to solve this issue?
Note: if it complicates the things then I wouldn't do anything. Also I want to point out that I am agree with the idea to solve this from Jim(Jameslwoodward), "To restore the deleted file and to put back into DR the other ones".
Else if it helps to solve this issue, then I can put all of these characters into my priority list(although it still would take me months to complete them all) and start working on them. FanNihongo (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Note2: I want to clarify that by solving this issue, I mean deleting only the VulpesVulpes42's versions. FanNihongo (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PDF files not displaying

Hello,

Recently I have been experiencing two problems with uploaded PDF files. The most recent is at File:Orley Farm (Serial Volume 7).pdf. Prior to upload the file opens and displays correctly (I have verified this using various current PDF viewers, an old version of Adobe Acrobat and a trial version of Foxit PDF editor). When uploaded, the thumbnail does not display and the page size is given as 0 x 0 pixels; the file size is correct. When attempting to use the file on Wikisource, the page images do not pull through.

In other instances, (most recent example File:The fleshly school of poetry and other phenomena of the day (IA cu31924013268887).pdf), the thumbnail and file details display correctly on Commons but when the file is used on Wikisource, the page images are not pulling through, there is only a hyperlink to the image.

In both cases, if the file is re-downloaded it opens properly in PDF readers.

I use Firefox but the same issues are present in Edge, so it doesn't seem to be browser related.

Can you advise?

Chrisguise (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrisguise: I have no specific advice on your situation, but I suggest you ask at the technical village pump. Brianjd (talk) 05:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted to the old version for now. Yann (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requests by Saboisheres

This user has repeated these requests several times, including multiple times today:

In particular, the first request is for a redirect that, in my opinion, should be speedily deleted. Can we get this dealt with somehow? Brianjd (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Both deleted. Yann (talk) 11:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP block request

Hi, Could an admin please block 2.6.66.34 as their contributions so far have been to try and blank MediaWiki talk:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js/auto-errors, IP has also been warned twice, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Achim blocked the IP for a week day, which was too short block. Let's try now with month-long block. Taivo (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Taivo, Agreed 1 day is too short, Thanks again for your help :), –Davey2010Talk 00:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of warn messages

I mean to remember that selective removal (without adding to archive) of warn messages from one's own user talkpage, such as here, is prohibited; but I cannot find where it's written; can anyone help? I think that especially for the sake of transparency such removals should not be allowed here. Regards --A.Savin 17:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recollect that their removal is forbidden. On en:WP the removal of refused block message is, see WP:BLANKING. I don't know of anything similar here, or if it (as you refer to here) it would go even further. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You might be remembering the title of {{Dont remove warnings}}, which is misleading as both it and the underlying guildeline (COM:TALK) only indicate that removal is discouraged/not recommended. General practise tends to be that removal is tolerated and interpreted as explicit confirmation that the notice has been read and understood. An exception, for example, is the {{Unblock declined}} template which is to remain for the duration of the block. Эlcobbola talk 19:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my claim that the current wording of that template is terrible, and contributes to the confusion expressed above. Brianjd (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

propietà archivi

Buongiorno, ho visto che alcune volte i miei caricamenti sono segnalati in quanto nella descrizione come fonte della foto metto Archivio Fenice Europa. Tutte le immagini sono inserite nel nostro archivio, Fenice Europa, e quando le utilizziamo o pensiamo di utilizzarle nel nostro sito le carico rendendole disponibili per tutti gli utenti. In altre parole l'archivio Fenice Europa è di mia propietà e le foto sono realizzate o da me stesso o da altri collaboratori dell'archivio che le mettono a disposizione. Volevo sapere come posso fare per evitare le segnalazioni.

In alcuni casi ci sono state donate delle foto da archivi privati, in questo caso cosa devo indicare ?

grazie — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeroMonterosa (talk • contribs) 07:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

property archives

Hello, I saw that some times my uploads are reported because in the description I put Archivio Fenice Europa as the source of the photo. All images are included in our archive, Fenice Europa, and when we use them or plan to use them on our site, I upload them and make them available to all users. In other words, the Fenice Europa archive is my property and the photos are taken either by myself or by other collaborators of the archive who make them available. I wanted to know how I can do to avoid the reports.

In some cases we have been donated some photos from private archives, in this case what should I indicate?

Thank you
translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NeroMonterosa: Ciao e benvenuto. Per ogni foto, abbiamo bisogno del permesso del fotografo di quella foto. Se non sei il fotografo, abbiamo bisogno di tale autorizzazione tramite VRT/it. Pinging @JuTa, Túrelio, Roniius come tagger. Vedi anche COM:EVID e COM:SIGN/it.
Hi, and welcome. For each photo, we need permission from the photographer of that photo. If you are not the photographer, we need that permission via VRT. Pinging @JuTa, Túrelio, Roniius as taggers. See also COM:EVID and COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP Block request

Hi, please block 118.136.103.1 for multiple vandalism committed in the last 24 hours -- Jakubhal 06:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Thanks for reverting edits! Taivo (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block request

Hi, Could someone block @Zhenyasorokin21 as they'd been uploading copyvios and are now repeatedly blanking the DR which I CSD'd, I've given them a final warning but they've carried on, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 20:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. AFBorchert blocked Zhenja for 3 days. Taivo (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of license reviewer right

Hi, due to personal issues and future inactivity, I would like to request the removal of my license reviewer right. Tks. LX | Talk 04:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I am sorry to see you going. It was pleasant to work with you and I hope to see you some day back. You are now only autopatrolled. Taivo (talk) 08:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COM:UDR and non-admins

At Commons:Village pump#COM:UDR instructions (or lack of), there seems to be some disagreement as to whether non-admins should be able to close requests at COM:UDR, or otherwise contribute there. No admins have contributed to this discussion; however, the discussion grew out of the earlier discussion at User talk:Contributers2020#Closing undeletion requests, where an admin told that user that only admins should close requests. Do other admins share this view, and can someone add some instructions to COM:UDR to settle this matter? Brianjd (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I Symbol strong support vote.svg support what Davey2010 said on the previous COM:VP. Let us try givingnon-admins a go. If there are problems happening, we can simply stop it, right? If there is positive changes in backlog happening, then let it continue. Contributers2020Talk to me here 17:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support - As stated at the other venue we can give this a go on a trial basis, see how everyone gets on - If people start making too many mistakes we can simply revert back to admins only. If non-admins are able to help more it relieves pressure on admins and those admins can divert their attention to more important things. I'm not overly convinced this will work which is why I'm still neutral but at the end of the day if we don't try we don't know. If people close purely snow-opposed UDRs or those for whatever reason aren't going to be undeleted then I can't really see what can go wrong .... (famous last words!). –Davey2010Talk 17:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Gbawden and Taivo at Commons:Village pump#COM:UDR instructions (or lack of). –Davey2010Talk 13:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Gbawden, Taivo, and Davey. Letting those without access to nonpublic information decide whether or not to rerelease nonpublic information is irresponsible. However, properly closing UDRs that have already been fulfilled or that are procedurally impossible or vandalistic is a public service.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing deletion request

Hi, could someone closed this deletion request, I have accidentally nominated my own file for deletion ... — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done King of ♥ 19:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP block request

Hi, Could someone block @82.78.75.209 please, They keep adding non-logos to logo categories and despite being told twice[21][22] to stop they ignore and continue, Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're also using the same IP they rangeblocked with back in October for the same issue too[23], Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't understand what the problem is. Also, I cannot follow your comment there "Only actual logos should be placed in the logo category - Logos on vehicles don't count". Regards --A.Savin 14:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A.Savin For instance here, here, here, here and here the IP is adding Category:Ferrari logos to those images - Would you say those 5 files belong in that category?,
In regards to the warning - Up until now logo-categories only ever consisted of vector logos not car badges. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A.Savin What I'm trying to say is that when someone goes to a logo category they would expect something along the lines of this which bar 1 are all vector logos, In this case the IP repeatedly fills up these categories with well car emblems, Of course if the user created something such as "Ferrari emblems" or "ferrari logos on cars" then sure that would be fine and I wouldn't have an issue with that but I just don't agree with the IP unnecessarily filling up these logo-categories with non vector logos, I hope this better explains where I'm coming from, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMO there is no such rule that only vector logos belong to logo categories; IMO categories on Commons are purely topic-related -- what is depicted is there, and what is not usually isn't; this is to treat similarly as Category:Mercedes-Benz stars etc. And if you wish to create "ferrari logos on cars", this category still would be sorted in "ferrari logos". So not sure what's ever wrong with this -- move the files there and all is fine. Regards --A.Savin 17:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point there isn't and having looked further around I see quite a few categories have all sorts of different logos - I admit I only looked at Category:McDonald's logos, Wikimedia Foundation logos and another one and only vector logos were in those so assumed this was the case for them all but apparently not, I disagree with the way the IP is filling these up but if there's no rule against it then I guess the IP is still entitled to continue unless I were to seek consensus to have these sorts of logos stopped from being added which would cause more issues than its worth,
Oh well thanks for your help and input A.Savin much appreciated, –Davey2010Talk 17:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Files marked "no permission" for almost 20 days

Hi. On Nov. 8, I marked three files as missing permission (File:S do Senna imperio.jpg, File:Prototipo MRX.jpg and File:Corrida de Curitiba Outubro 2021.jpg). However, the issue was not addressed in any of the files and, nevertheless, they are yet to be deleted. Meaning that the files are up for deletion for almost 20 days, much more than the usual 7 days. Can some sysop give it a look and see what is the problem? Thanks. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 01:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kacamata: The problem is clearly that the administrators are too busy. The (hidden) category Media missing permission as of 8 November 2021 contains 59 files. The oldest such category is Media missing permission as of 15 October 2021, which contains 36 files. Almost every day in between then and now also has a populated category. Media missing permission is even tagged {{Backlog}}. Brianjd (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. My bad. I assumed it would be some kind of technical issue. I forgot to consider that it wasn't deleted simply because we are short on sysops. My apologies for that. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 04:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the backlog is due to many files being tagged as "missing permission" for unexplained reasons that may not be evident to others. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Files deleted. IMO many files get a "no permission" while they should be tagged as copyvios. Yann (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist update request

Please add \bmennica-rosenberg\.pl\b to the blacklist. It is related to this report. --jdx Re: 18:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Achim55 (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ip block request

Hi, COuld someone block 2.6.62.3 as they're blanking MediaWiki report pages for some bizarre reason, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Already reported at COM:AN/B, but hey, apparently there's a shortage of Admins on Commons. I wonder why? Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rodhullandemu Ah so you did, Funny enough I noticed only a few weeks ago admins weren't as prompt as they usually are, Everyone has lives that's understandable but when there's like 100s of admins and not one is around then that becomes a worrying sign, Simple EN was understaffed and you ended up having to let the vandal vandalize everything until an admin came as reverting repeatedly became pointless as you were just fighting a losing battle, Hope Commons doesn't go the same way! :(. –Davey2010Talk 21:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked 1 week by Yann. De728631 (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My original email address and 2FA help

I can't get access to the email jenica415@gmail.com and it's tied to many photos and data I would like to restore. Can you pls help? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 45.44.133.240 (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. No, we cannot. Try to log in and click "Forget password?" when you see it. Taivo (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anonymous-EU

Please revert this move. To @Michalg95: Moving a category won't automatically recategorize all its pages. Please make an {{Editrequest}} on Template talk:PD-anon-70-EU instead. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh Name me 08:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I also requested a move here. Yann (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upload Wizard

Few weeks ago i stopped uploading photos, because i noticed, that uploader is named as "wizard". As christian, i don't want to use, promote etc. any tools, that is some form of tribute to wizards, magic, witches, devils, demons, dragons etc. anti-christian values. Is it possible to make easy uploader (in integrated tools), that would be chrisitian-friendly? Also due to this remarks, please don't promote Upload Wizard as default tool (some other peoples also could don't notice this for some period of time). From religious point of view, it is serious matter.VVerka5 (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to use any other Commons:Upload tools (Commonist is out of work though). However, renaming the upload wizard is something that cannot be done unilaterally by an administrator. You would have to gain a broad a consensus at the COM:Village pump and to be honest I don't see how this is going to happen. De728631 (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How does your computer work, without daemons? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wizards are not just limited to Commons, PC Mag on the term. Bidgee (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Something tells me we're being trolled. Genuinely don't believe for one second someone would actually be offended over the term "wizard" here. –Davey2010Talk 22:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Have you never heard about religious fundamentalists? --jdx Re: 23:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Someone who is so easily offended will surely find plenty of other things to offend them on this site. Brianjd (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VVerka5 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another one on a mission from God. Face-smile.svg In any case, nobody is forcing you to visit this devilish website… --jdx Re: 23:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What i could say - When i searched for freewere browser games, I (and not only I) often was/am forced to view occultic or demonic themes. First example - between links to eg. rather normal games (and eventualy some games that i would not want to see solely based on personal taste or experience), somehow someone, add such a games and don add filter, that can prevent seeing that themes, or not place label with appropriate warning. Second example - Don't forget about ads... About forcing to visit devilish site - Sometimes i'm forced to see nightmares with that themes end persons - I don't choose that. I was exorcised. From that time such a nigthmares aren't that intense, as was before exorcism, but i'm aware, that they still happend. Other things are addictions - i'm addicted to some sinful addictions, so strong, that even after confessions in church, after few hours i could experience struggling and sometimes I clearly can't cope with that. Due to that, however i have faith, a could not't say with 100% certainity, that i will be Salved and land in Heaven. I have only tiny, tiny Hope for that. However it is so tiny, and it fuel my depresiion (which have many kinds of other fuels), i still don't wan't do makes sins.VVerka5 (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "wizard" has multiple definitions. Merriam-Webster dictionary includes "a very clever or skillful person; computer wizards" "worthy of the highest praise : excellent" . Google definition includes "Computing: a help feature of a software package that automates complex tasks by asking the user a series of easy-to-answer questions." "Informal: wonderful; excellent. how absolutely wizard". Etc, take your pick. For the record, Wikimedia's "upload wizard" is a tool for easy upload of files which makes no pretense to have dark magical powers. HTH! -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wizard programs" or titles of "wizard", despite they don't use any magic, that word is strictly rooted in term "wizard" with conotation with magic. I cannot "take pick" - if i do that, that would be lying to myself. Also I found, that some of installation programs also are called as "wizard" (and some isn't). When i search for some freewere programs, i tried to not install that installation programs named as "wizard". Sometimes i failed, but when i recognized, i unninstal that programs (but i can't guarantee, that i eradicate all from PC i using). Earlier i used Linux Mint, but after i read about that programs in linux, soon i uninstalled linux and throw away bootable dvd. What i read, in Windows, Windows services perform functions, that are also performed by programs namead after daemons in linux. What i understand - Windows services isn't tribute to daemons. Eg. feeding hungry human is basically good things to do. Making PC work isn't bad either. What is bad and forbiden, due to my personal reasoning, using real daemons as "help", so if someone feed hungry, than it's good, but if someomene try to use real daemon to feed hungry, then it's bad thing. Programs in computers aren't real daemons, but as we see, some programs names are tributed to them. So, as christian, i restrict myself - however certains program aren't real daemons, but due to beeing named and tribiuted to them, i can't accept it. Church is strictly opposed to any form of using magic or demonic forces. Mentioning about them in right context isn't bad per se - in Bible, we cen read warnings about them and about some form of existance of them. Cults of demons, tributes to them - are bad thing. There aren't "good or bad daemons" no matter what kind of story, fictional or historical, that word are backed up. If you could view me as fundamentalist and also because i'm only one human who noticed that problem and wrote about it, then please, let the representations of Wikipedia/Wikimedia consult (i'm mean - really consult, not throw away or ignore, because it is serious problems) that topic with at least few priests, but also rabins and imams (because christianity, judaism and islam are strictly against devil, despite religious differences). They have some teological authority, and i'm just ordinary human with no personal authority. VVerka5 (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    From a psychological POV, we are practically lying to ourselves every single second. Why can't you just put those programs' names aside and look at their usability? They weren't given a chance to choose their own name, were they? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh Name me 05:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That situation i understand in context of Matthew 18:6. First - Some peoples, especially at young age, are especcialy vulnerable to informations, they recieved from society. If in particular society evil values are favorized, then those especcialy vulnerables are prone to be victims (eg. young children in Africa, who are trained to use guns kill other peoples are victims of that "education"). Magic, witches, dragons etc. are clearly conected with devil and evil values (even if someone claim something like "white magic", it is still evil things). If somwhere that evil values are painted as good or grey, then those vulnerable peoples, can be lured to that values or even actions. Second. Those programs isn't actual wizard and it isn't magic, but in society live humans with vulnerabilites, that make them struggle with understanding metaphors (and could think ,that those programs are real wizards etc.) or struggle with diferentiating what is moral and what not (similar to situation, where peoples have problems with differntiating colours or colour blindness but in issues of morality and with far worst potential consequences). VVerka5 (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Picture about a situationist prank about a fake statue and fake vandalism in Rome

The following picture described as Italian inventor Guglielmo Marconi it's a fake. The statue it's not related to Marconi (it depicts an Italian contemporary artist in search of fame) and has been installed only to be vandalized on the same day. The artist uploaded the picture before commit the vandalism and edited the Italian wikipedia page about the statues only to have proof of the existence of a statue of Marconi in that area. Nobody noticed that the man depicted in the statue wasn't Marconi, and so he can complete the prank next day.

I suggest the picture should be removed, because it's related to self promotion. However is quite curious the this artist used wikipedia as support for his prank.

Here an article about the prank: https://www.dagospia.com/rubrica-29/cronache/fregati-ldquo-banksy-de-rsquo-noantri-rdquo-nbsp-ndash-video-286376.htm

Regards, --46.19.137.116 14:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. De728631 (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible COM:FAIR and COM:OVERWRITE issues

Would an admin mind taking a look at File:SuperLiga logo.png? This appears to be logo file was overwritten as part of an attempt to update it; however, neither the original version or the current version appear to be released as licensed and instead are more likely to be COM:NETCOPYVIOs if they can't be converted to {{PD-logo}}. I thought about requesting a split at COM:HMS, but not sure if it's worth splitting a file that's going to end up being deleted regardless. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the file - it's a clear copyvio and far above TOO. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look at this Pi.1415926535. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous uploads of images tagged as own work

The user Grilando [24] is creating several stubs on eswiki and for every one of it, he uploads images that are not very likely to be "own work" as he tags them. A notable example is this one [25] which even has the URL watermark of the site where he probably might have gotten it from.--MexTDT (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many blatant copyright violations from user. 2 day block and final warning given. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of the openrefine-3.6 tag

Dear Commons admins,

Could it be possible to create a MediaWiki tag in Commons, called "openrefine-3.6"? We would need it to track edits made on Commons by the OpenRefine tool, in the scope of this grant. The tag would be directly applied by users and would not be applied via an Abuse Filter or OAuth consumer. To render it in the interface, I would suggest the following wikitext: [[Commons:OpenRefine|OpenRefine]] 3.6.

Thank you! − Pintoch (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unarchived this thread because it has been archived without having been resolved. − Pintoch (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: would you mind having a look? It should be really straightforward using the form provided at Special:Tags. Thank you! − Pintoch (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pintoch: I created a tag. I don't know if that's sufficient. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: ✓ Done thank you so much, it is perfect :) − Pintoch (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:HK Sai Ying Pun Des Voeux Road West Building 德輔道西 tram stop Oct-2013.JPG and similar files

The file linked above (file 1) appears to be a cropped version of HK Sai Ying Pun Des Voeux Road West Building 德輔道西 tram stop Oct-2013 yellow.jpg (file 2). The original version of file 1, now revdel'd, is the same resolution as file 2. I suspect that the original version of file 1 is identical to file 2. This has the following consequences:

  1. File 2, and HK Sai Ying Pun Des Voeux Road West Tram body ads Intimissimi Italian underwear Oct-2013 yellow.jpg (file 3), are also infringing.
  2. At least one user is lying, as files 1 and 2 were uploaded by different users who both claim it is their own work.

Brianjd (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianjd: I have tagged all three as needing permission.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G. But it's possible that only one user is lying, and the other user is telling the truth. And the honest user must be wondering what sort of evidence you are looking for, when they have already uploaded a full resolution image with metadata. Brianjd (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianjd: Yes, but we need evidence. There is also deleted File:HK Sai Ying Pun Des Voeux Road West Tram body ads Intimissimi Italian underwear Oct-2013.JPG to consider. Hopefully, an Admin can shed some light here.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A look at the timp-stamps (all of year 2013) might saved us quite some worktime:
The original version of File:HK Sai Ying Pun Des Voeux Road West Building 德輔道西 tram stop Oct-2013.JPG was uploaded October 3, 3:40 by User:Haosmwkmn
The censored version, File:HK Sai Ying Pun Des Voeux Road West Building 德輔道西 tram stop Oct-2013 yellow.jpg, was uploaded October 3, 5:20 by User:Osfdileimora and was unknown to me until know, as it's a DW needing deletion.
The cropped version of File:HK Sai Ying Pun Des Voeux Road West Building 德輔道西 tram stop Oct-2013.JPG was uploaded October 3, 9:04 by me, after finding the ad on the tram would be a DW.
The original version of File:HK Sai Ying Pun Des Voeux Road West Tram body ads Intimissimi Italian underwear Oct-2013.JPG was uploaded October 3, 3:40 by User:Haosmwkmn und was deleted by me as DW at 09:02.
The censored version, File:HK Sai Ying Pun Des Voeux Road West Tram body ads Intimissimi Italian underwear Oct-2013 yellow.jpg, was uploaded October 3, 5:20 by User:Osfdileimora and was unknown to me until know, as it's a DW needing deletion.
I see no base for doubt that User:Haosmwkmn is the photographer. --Túrelio (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've now tagged both uploads of User:Osfdileimora as copyvio due to COM:DW. He/She probably wasn't aware that his authorship-claim made it copyvios, as he/she used even the original filenames and just added "yellow" to it. --Túrelio (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianjd and Túrelio: Thank you both!   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Free emulation software All categories and file surveys and requests for action.

Category:Free emulation software Copyright and PD's concerns about damage to the public.

In files in the free emulation software category,

In 74 categories from A to Z,

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

Some files contain copyrights and PDs.

Copyright without the owner's permission and files with PD's permission

It's being left unattended.

The files are in Korean, Japanese, English, Chinese, German, Russian, French, and Italian.

In numerous documents, uploaded public files are being used without copyright discussion.

Here

Free emulation software (Category)

Subcategories This category has the following 74 subcategories, out of 74 total.

Free emulation software has 74 categories.

Duckstation, Joiplay, Redream, etc. that have been confirmed to be deleted.

Three needs to be deleted along with the category.

I think we need to consider whether to preserve or delete the remaining categories left empty.

Among these categories, it is important to check whether the uploaded files have copyrights and PDs.

There are dozens of files that need to be deleted and left unattended.

From 1964 (emulator) to ZSNES, we'll investigate everything in alphabetical order (A to Z)

All copyrighted and PD files must be deleted.

Out of the 74 categories,

Copyright and PD files without the owner's permission may be uploaded countless times.

End users should be prevented from uploading it. 125.181.255.254 16:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user has posted the same message on multiple boards. To avoid splitting the discussion, I'd advise continuing the discussion at the Village Pump. I will mark this section as resolved. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP block request

Hi, Could an admin block 90.38.10.50 who's seemingly the same as 2.6.62.3 - For reasons I don't understand they keep blanking MediaWiki talk:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js/auto-errors/2021-06, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 20:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Pi, Great;y appreciate your swift action, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 20:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2 Copyvios, additional admin action needed

User:Simsunman uploaded two files I’ve just now tagged as (IMHO clear) copyvios: File:AIMP logo.svg and File:Afw main-1.png. The problem is that the user also introduced these files in several projects and needs to be reverted (I noticed the according dewiki change). We have File:AIMP3 Logo.png (apparently for the logo) and File:AIMP.jpg for the program interface, both uploaded by the original developer Artem Izmaylov who also sent permission for these. If you want to investigate yourself: Check AIMP website, especially the copyright on bottom line, and go to download page of AIMP (Windows), download the latest “no installer” version (ZIP file, about 17 MB large), and look inside of this into the license.rtf. I also suggested to Simsunman that Artem Izmaylov should better be asked instead on the AIMP Feedback page if he could (again) upload more recent versions of the logo and the program interface. — Speravir – 03:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the other info message on the user’s talk page (@EugeneZelenko): I did not look for all files, but for the first, File:Aimp3preview.jpg – confer announcement for Pandemic as default skin for AIMP3 by original creator containing a link to a page on radikal.ru. — Speravir – 03:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The other files are in my opinion clear copyright violations, too, taken from the AIMP website. — Speravir – 03:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Denklingen - Epfach - VIA CLAUDIA Nr 31 v O.JPG

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

es geht um dieses Bild, das auf Wikipedia veröffentlicht wurde:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Denklingen_-_Epfach_-_VIA_CLAUDIA_Nr_31_v_O.JPG

ich bin Privateigentümer des Gebäudes Via Claudia 31, 86920 Epfach. Dieses Bild von meinem Haus wurde von Flodur63 ohne mein Einverständnis gemacht. Das ist als datenschutzrechtlicher Verstoß zu werten. Ich bitte Sie, dieses Bild umgehend zu löschen. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Klaus Mergel Kontakt: klaus.mergel@gmx.de —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.118.209.100 (talk) 11:49, 3 December 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir or Madam,

it's about this picture that was published on Wikipedia:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Denklingen_-_Epfach_-_VIA_CLAUDIA_Nr_31_v_O.JPG

I am the private owner of the building Via Claudia 31, 86920 Epfach. This picture of my house was taken by Flodur63 without my consent. This is to be seen as a violation of data protection law. I ask you to delete this picture immediately. Kind regards, Klaus Mergel

Contact: klaus.mergel @ gmx.de
translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo und willkommen. File:Denklingen - Epfach - VIA CLAUDIA Nr 31 v O.JPG ist ein Bild des Bayerischen Baudenkmals mit der ID D-1-81-113-45, legal als ständig auf a öffentliche Straße nach COM:FOP Germany/de und dem zugrunde liegenden [https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_urhg.html § 59(1) des Gesetzes über das Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte von 1965 (Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) (UrhG). Es wird in zwei deutschen Wikipedia-Artikeln und Wikidata verwendet. Sie können es per COM:DP/de zum Löschen vorschlagen, aber ich bezweifle, dass Sie sich durchsetzen werden. Siehe auch COM:SIGN/de. Pinging @Flodur63 als Uploader.
Hi, and welcome. File:Denklingen - Epfach - VIA CLAUDIA Nr 31 v O.JPG is a picture of the Bavarian Baudenkmal (cultural heritage monument) with the ID D-1-81-113-45, legal as permanently situated on a public street per COM:FOP Germany and the underlying section 59(1) of the 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) (UrhG). It is in use in two German Wikipedia articles and Wikidata. You may nominate it for deletion per COM:DP, but I doubt you will prevail. See also COM:SIGN. Pinging @Flodur63 as uploader.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Hallo Klaus, wenn das Foto von öffentlichem Grund aus gemacht wurde, ist dein Einverständnis nicht notwendig. Lies bitte de:Recht am Bild der eigenen Sache und frage deinen Anwalt, wenn du uns nicht glaubst. Gruß, Achim55 (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Achim55 and Jeff G.: Do I remember wrong or aren’t email adresses of users usually redacted? — Speravir – 03:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Speravir: My practice for years has been to redact phone numbers and street addresses, but use {{At}} (which has been here for 13+ years for that very purpose) on email addresses. en:Template:No spam is a little older. In this case, the street address is necessarily part of the filename.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: oh, I didn’t notice the template usage. Then my reaction was superfluous here … — Speravir – 01:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP block request 2

Hi, COuld an admin please block 79.52.111.137 who's vandalising the the file claims thingy, I don't know if they're related to 95.247.102.248 who had spent some time doing .. well [User contributions for 95.247.102.248 - Wikimedia Commons this]..., Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They'd continued this this morning again blanking the file claims page[26], Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They're still continuing[27], Could someone please block them?. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant thanks Yann very much appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

mercy rule?

Is that a thing? I ask because the outcome of Commons:Administrators/Requests/Gameposo is painfully obvious, and three more days of opposes piling up won't change that. I think the point has been made. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it for now. Lots of discussion went into the current wording "at least seven days". Thuresson (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeblebrox and Thuresson: We do have COM:SNOW, but it's just an essay.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 00:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's up to the Crats, unless the nominee has expressed a desire to withdraw. AntiCompositeNumber talk 01:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeblebrox I assumed early on that the request would be snow-closed; in fact, I said it would be when I referred to it in passing on another forum. But if it hasn't happened already, I guess it's not going to happen. Brianjd (talk) 08:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple copyvios

I have already commented at the village pump Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Royal Regiment of Scotland cap badge regarding potentially multiple copyvios but have not received any reply yet. There are lots of recently uploaded UK MOD files at Category:British Army Cap Badges etc. which I believe should not be on Commons as the OGL v1.0 license does not allow for this. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing copywriter issues on already uploaded images

Hello, The 4 images I uploaded was flagged by a bot. I obviously did not do things correctly. I am a new user, and having problems navigating your site. The images are from a site - which is Free Content- I put it as copywrite to give credit to Js Syntax tree- but don't understand how to go about changing it. I've tried to delete, and reupload but the server does not allow. What should I do? Thank you for your help in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ling300MW (talk • contribs)

Hello. See Commons:Licensing, note that Wikimedia Commons is for free licensed media only. So if you upload something from the web, you need to show that it is free licensed and specify what license the copyright holder has shared it under. I looked at one of the images you uploaded. File:Syntax tree-22.png is sourced to this link, which states "© 2003-2020 IronCreek Software". That would seem to indicate it is not free licensed. You state it is "Free Content" - if so, you need to include a link where the copyright holder specifically shares it under some type of free license. If you can't show it is free licensed, it doesn't belong on Wikimedia Commons. Take some time to look at the links in the welcome message at the top of your talk page at User_talk:Ling300MW for more info. Hope this helps. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ ManMucho22 (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Science Photo Competition in Ukraine: Request for MassMessage

Hi! I have a quick request from the Ukrainian Science Photo Competition team. We'd like to send an invitation to participation in the contest to those who participated in previous-year editions but haven't taken part in this one. Here's text of the message, and here's the list of receivers. Thanks! --AntonProtsiuk (WMUA) (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please block me

Please block my account on commons so I won't ever use it again. Seven Pandas (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The context for this appears to be Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stonewall Inn during Pride 2018 (50126p).jpg. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please hold off for 24 hours to allow Seven Pandas to rethink such a drastic step.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 00:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If you don't wish to edit Commons anymore, simply don't do it. Regards --A.Savin 12:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block and cleanup for bot

The bot User:Red panda bot keeps creating pages with File:File: prefixes, and the files are probably failing to upload because they are getting stopped by the file blacklist. Can a sysop delete the faulty files and block the bot until it's fixed. Thanks. Dylsss (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ping: @Shizhao: Dylsss (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed this problem, it seems to be an upstream problem (pywikibot), I will fix it as soon as possible shizhao (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:State Ceremonial Music - God Save the Queen.ogg

Someone is insisting that this is OGL, despite the fact that it is not. I've re-inserted a CSD template, but what this really needs is deletion. RandomCanadian (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What this really needs is discussion instead of edit warring. Therefore please proceed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:State Ceremonial Music - God Save the Queen.ogg. De728631 (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I replied for OGL license as "non-commercial use" Adventis Patronus (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@De728631: The above now blocked as an LTA (plus, their English on the deletion page is barely comprehensible gibberish)... Ich verstehe das in den meisten Fällen, der Prozess ist wichtig, aber hier das Ergebnis ist klar... RandomCanadian (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: Thank you for the new information. I am also suspicious of this alleged OGL licence, but since you two kept edit warring about the deletion tag I thought it would be better to go through a full deletion discussion. De728631 (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copy wright violations constantly

please check this user activities. all the uploads is come from google images. this user uploads files as an own works but non of them are. [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done User warned, all filed deleted. This belongs to COM:ANU. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP block request

>Hi, Could an admin block 79.21.163.33 please - They're the same as 79.52.111.137 who keeps blanking a Mediawiki error page for no apparent reason, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone also block 2.6.231.137 for the same reasons. Some vandals really do live sad lives. –Davey2010Talk 20:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done: Both of them for 1 week, 3 file pages protected. --Achim55 (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Achim much appreciated, Yeah sorry I got muddled up - The 79 IP was messing around with the file data stuff and 2.6 was messing around with MediaWiki pages, Anyway thanks again, –Davey2010Talk 21:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Achim55 and Davey2010: See also COM:ANV#2.6.0.0/16.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 21:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks User:Jeff G. - Side rant but I just can't understand where these morons get the satisfaction from from blanking file data stuff or error-reporting pages ..... It's a whole new level of sad when you can't even vandalise or troll correctly without making yourself look like a tool. –Davey2010Talk 22:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: I try to avoid attacking them as people, and prefer to criticize their vandalistic actions. However, "vandal" has historically been seen as appropriate when supported by evidence.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 22:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haha couldn't agree more mate. Very very sad indeed. It's their parents I feel sorry for, I'd be disappointed if they were my children too. –Davey2010Talk 22:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden category title

Good afternoon,

I would like to gather 3 pictures of the same monument in a common category « Category:Monument to Vladimir Vysotsky and Marina Vladi » but it seems that its forbidden because it's corresponding to .*(mattia) morleo)[^\/]*(mattia[vlad], page morleo).* (according to the message in French). I would like to undestand why, what can I do and why the French text ("Vous n’avez pas le droit de créer cette page, pour la raison suivante : Le titre « Category:Monument to Vladimir Vysotsky and Marina Vladi » est interdit à la création. Il correspond à l’entrée suivante de la liste des titres interdits : .*(mattia|vlad|morleo)[^\/]*(mattia|vlad|morleo).*") doesn't explain what to do and who can be contacted ? Can someone help me ? Thank you in advance. --Guy Delsaut (discuter) 16:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Delsaut Looks like this is a result of something on the global title blacklist. I've temporarily whitelisted the title, you should be able to create the page now. We might want to have a permanent override for .*vlad.*vlad.* since it's caused issues a few times. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AntiCompositeNumber Thanks, it works but I misspelled Vlady (with a Y and not an I). So, « Category:Monument to Vladimir Vysotsky and Marina Vlady » doesn't work. Could you also whitelisted this title? And for the blacklisted of vlad*, I don't know the context of the blacklist but "vladimir" is the first name of a lot of people, no? That could generate a lot of problems of categorisation. --Guy Delsaut (discuter) 18:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Delsaut Try it now. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I just noticed that a user has recently uploaded what appears to be their own artwork, digital black & white cartoon caricatures of people that are being added to infoboxes of BLPs on numerous Wikipedias. I'm not familiar with Commons or image policy so I'm asking if this is permissible? Thank you Thewolfchild (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: That depends on the sources of their works.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 01:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: As I said, it appears to be their own artwork. They have listed "own work" in the data for each file. I linked their contribs, you can have a look for yourself, and maybe tell me? Thanks Thewolfchild (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any further insight to add, Jeff G.? Or anyone else have anything to add? Again, I'm just seeking feedback, as I said I'm not familiar with image policy and I've never seen this kind of image used before, especially in the infoboxes of multiple BLPs. Thanks again. Thewolfchild (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I posted a report on the BLP noticeboard on the English Wikipedia, see the link here. Thanks. Thewolfchild (talk) 07:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewolfchild: I posted there.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jeff G, these images were drawn by independant artists to illustrate articles lacking an illustration. They have been advised about the copyright issues and have published their original work with a creative commons license. @Ohocelot: is a french contributor. I cannot remember if he speaks English. @Alacoolwiki, Rosiestep, and Anthere: . @Yann: could you please give us your advice on this ? This is a les sans pagEs project aiming at producing realistic images for articles lacking illustrations. Nattes à chat (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nattes à chat: Thank you. Please link to your userpage or user talk page in your signature per COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nattes à chat: Hi, There is no problem, but it would be even better to send a general confirmation by email. In a few years, after these portraits appear on the Internet, it will be difficult to know who is the author and what is the original source. I have seen this issue with paintings. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann the author is @Ohocelot, the person who has uploaded his own work, stating it is his own work. I do not understand why an additional email would be necessary. Celinea33 (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nattes à chat: If the art was not personally drawn by you (i.e. you are representing multiple "independent artists"), then please have each of them send COM:VRT confirmation that they agree to the Creative Commons license. They can either do it for specific images, but then they would have to send a new permission email for every image you upload, or they can issue a blanket authorization for your user account to release their work under the CC license. -- King of ♥ 16:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts the art shared by @Thewolfchild was drawn by @Ohocelot, the same person that has uploaded the images to Commons. At the moment he did the upload, he indeed agreed to the Creative Commons license.
@Nattes à chat is talking of several artists because @Ohocelot is not the only artist that participate in that project, but each and every artist has uploaded their own work by themselves with their own account and agreed to the license, so I understand it is not necessary to send any permission. Celinea33 (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I misunderstood. If everyone is uploading their own work, and the work has not been previously published on another website, then no VRT is necessary. -- King of ♥ 03:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restrict MP3 uploads

Hello, I would like to upload the MP3 version of all the ogg audio files already uploaded by me. I receive the message "Restrict MP3 uploads" even if all the files belong to me and there is no cpoyright on them. What could I do? Furthermore, is it possible to upload in the same page (e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Il_tempio_di_Minerva_Medica.ogg) the mp3 version of the same audio file or it is necessary to create another description for the mp3 file? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnese.ga (talk • contribs) 04:05, 14 December 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Agnese.ga: Hi, and welcome. I am sorry to inform you that you have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/192 by trying to upload an mp3 file with insufficient rights. Too many people try to upload audio files that are still copyrighted by the authors, performers, recorders, publishing companies, etc. without proper licenses from those people. Please document more fully the sources and licenses of your audio uploads, and then request Autopatrol group membership at COM:RFR when you think you are ready (once you have made more than 500 useful non-botlike edits); having that should allow you to upload mp3 files. Until then, you may reencode the audio into Vorbis or Opus and upload it with full documentation as an .ogg or .oga file (or use any other format accepted per COM:FT#Sound). See also COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still copy wright violation

this user still after receiving a warning is adding other works under its name (non of them are own work of this user)

  1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jenab_-_khan.jpg
  2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Afshin_-_aala.jpg
  3. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ahmadi_nejad_%26_khamenei_%26_roohani.jpg

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. The right place to report such an issue is COM:ANU or COM:ANB. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Modern Sciences: Hi, and welcome. Please also use internal links.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 19:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have my information removed

I do not want an account based on my name, pictures, and information. Please eliminate my account listed as "Lon Brown" —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 47.139.7.189 (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome. We don't have an account for "Lon Brown", so please login to confirm your intent, and see COM:SIGN and m:RTV.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably Category:Lon Brown. The problem there would be that they're of Lon Brown, not by Lon Brown. So there's really very little that will be done here.
You could nominate the files in that category for deletion. But there would have to be a reason for that and "privacy" isn't going to carry much weight for photos of a cosplayer posing for photos at a public event. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage revocation request

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

Hi, I don't ask this lightly but could someone revoke Jdxs talkpage access please ?, They were indeffed for making a death threat in order to make a point however they're now attacking people on their talkpage (including people who supported their unblock!). Their unblock was declined yesterday and I dont believe any further unblocks will be successful either,
I'm also noting for the record that I was called a troll by them which is water off a ducks back to me and I don't care in the slightest so this isn't a "revenge request" so to speak ... I just don't see the point in further allowing them to continue to disrupt Commons any longer and as I said I don't believe any further unblock requests would be successful. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jdx said "there will be no further comments on my side." I will take that literatim. Hopefully a few months pause might make Jdx change their mind. Yann (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He said there would be no more comments with this edit [28] then several hours later made this edit full of personal attacks [29]. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the last sentence he wrote. Yann (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yann, Okay that's fair enough, I'm convinced he's said something similar before though, If you're confident/happy that he'll stop then I'm happy for nothing further being done here. Not to be disrespectful but I'm closing this as I don't want this turning into a long thread and I dont want more arguments to take place here (ironic coming from the #1 passive-aggressive editor on here but there we go). If they continue I (or someone else) can revisit here. Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I want to get the autopatrol user right.

Hello.

I have made numerous contributions while working on Wikimedia Commons.

None of these numerous contributions were vandalism, and therefore all my contributions are not vandalism.

So I think it's good to have the autopatrol user right.

Ox1997cow (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ox1997cow: You are welcome to apply at COM:RFR#Autopatrol.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Thanks. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:))

I'm not sure why this template was deleted. Its purpose is to provide "}}" indirectly so that MediaWiki will not render it as template's end but a normal string. There are hundreds of transclusions, including some editnotices, such as this one. Pinging @Yann: as the admin who deleted it. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 16:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS. I thought this was some test by an IP. Yann (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓[OK] Restored by Yann. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 16:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barasoain Church facade.JPG

Could any admin act on this DR I started in July 2021? It must be reverted to its first version, and the second and last versions be revision deleted (revdel) as these two are not uploader's photos (the original version is). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DIVIDIVYA (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log

This new user created his/her account on the 20th. All photos are nice but many, if not all, come from https://www.gokulphotography.com/ as stated on many of them. There is no indication of permission from that site to the uploader. Can an Administrator contact DIVIDIVYA and reminds him/her of the free copyright policy of Commons and determining if those photos need to be deleted. Pierre cb (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I warned the user. Taivo (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redacting of number plate and deleting the other versions

Is it normal for a Common administrator to replace a new version of my image with the number plate removed as well as removing the old version so I can't revert them? I was not informed nor asked from both the admin and the owner of the car about this. If the owner or admin did ask me to blank out the number plate, I would be happy to do it myself. Unless the admin show me proof that the owner of the car posted here or wrote an email to an admin then this is uncool for. --Vauxford (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[30] [31]

@Vauxford: This was a request from VRTS (ticket:2021122110006777) made by the car owner. If there is a reason, why the identification data should be available on the photo, please advice. We generally support privacy-related requests like license plate removal or face bluring on requests. If you need the original photos, for some reason (eg in order to remove the license numbers in another way), feel free to ask. Ankry (talk) 10:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ankry Fair enough if they did that although, the car owner shouldn't be shocked that a car as old as theirs is parked at a classic car show to be photographed and uploaded onto the Internet. You should've inform me about it and I could've done it myself. I would like the original photo of both the front and the rear to blank the number plate properly please. --Vauxford (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I disagree with @Ankry's revdel here - If this were taken on their drive or outside their house I can understand ..... but this apparently was taken at a car show where the owner is proudly showing their vehicle .... if they cared that much they should've put something over the plate once they arrived there.
There's no case for privacy here when they've all things in the world taken it to a car show, It's no different to events such as TruckFest - People appreciate the vehicles and unless disallowed then photography would be allowed and so what the owner wants is irrelevant.
IMHO the image should be un-revdelled and the request should be overturned to declined on the basis that they knowingly took it to an event where people are going to photograph it .... Not our problem as far as I'm concerned. –Davey2010Talk 18:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: Feel free to ask another admin to unhide the images, I have no objections if they share your point of view. But I will not do this myself. Ankry (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay no worries Ankry, Pinging @Yann, @Taivo and @A.Savin who may have different views here. - Apologies KoH had replied whilst I was writing my reply. –Davey2010Talk 20:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any reason to keep the number plate if the owner asks to remove it. The plate doesn't give any additional value to the image. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we can't get everyone to agree here, I think the best option is a DR (it will be clarified that only revision deletion is being sought, not deletion of the entire image). Is that OK with everyone? -- King of ♥ 20:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with that, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done: Commons:Deletion requests/File:1990 Vauxhall Astra LX 1.4 Front.jpg. -- King of ♥ 20:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) I think @Krd: should be notified, as he is involved with the ticket. Ankry (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally have two accounts

I just realized I have two accounts here, User:Flarn2005 and User:Flarn2006. I logged into the former to comment on a category deletion discussion, because I knew this was my name on Wikipedia originally and I knew I never submitted a username change request here. But when I went to fill out the username change request form here, it said the name "flarn2006" was already taken, and sure enough, I did have an account here with this name, that I had apparently used as recently as 2018. I've used both of these accounts to make edits in the past, so I guess that technically makes me a sockpuppeteer, but I really only want to use the name "flarn2006".

What is the correct approach here? Is there a way I can have the contributions of my two accounts merged, with this one becoming my account? Either way, I'm just going to use this account from now on (except to validate this request, and to create User:Flarn2005 to redirect to User:Flarn2006) so you might as well block the Flarn2005 one so I don't accidentally use it in the future.

Thank you for your assistance. Flarn2006 (talk) 05:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am the owner of both accounts. Flarn2005 (talk) 05:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, account merging is not possible. You can simply just scramble the password of Flarn2005 and logout. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: the Wikimedia foundation instituted single unified login on all Wikimedia sites n 2015. So, if you have an account on any project, you have it on all projects. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion request

Hi could someone delete File:Christmas Card.png please as it includes a rude message directed at WP editors (I've cropped it but only used for vandalistic purposes) and it was uploaded by a known EN WP sock, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone block the uploader Merry Christmas 2021 too as there's no real purpose for them to be here other than to troll and vandalise, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done - thanks Herby talk thyme 16:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks @Herbythyme greatly appreciate your help, I hope you and yours had a lovely Crimbo yesterday and hope you all have a safe and happy new year, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 16:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

86 Juegos (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log

Hi,

I received a strange unmotivated deletion request on my talk page for a cropped image I made (File:Taïg Krhis à Rennes cropped.jpg) from a free image (File:Taïg Khris à Rennes.jpg).

Now, the deletion request still stand, but a rename request has been added...

I'm not familiar with commons aside from uploads, but when I digged into this user contribs, It looks like a lot from those of a banned user: Weiss2226 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log.

Regards,

Gonioul (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mass message sending

Hello, can someone please send the messages at Commons:Czech Wiki Photo/MassMessage/2020 and Commons:Czech Wiki Photo/MassMessage/2021? Thanks for any help! For the record, Natalia is a part of WMCZ staff, and asked me to relay the request to Commons admins on her behalf. Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Valued Images of paintings

Cat is empty and useless, due to misspelling (capital I) I didn't find a button to propose deletion. There is a correct one: "Category:Valued images of paintings". --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Palauenc05: It is a category redirect. Please leave it alone, use internal links, and in other situations use the automatic Nominate for deletion tool in the Tools menu on the sidebar per COM:DR#Starting requests.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

rename files

all of this file create by English titles except to below file


  • File:Armenia Czechia Locator.png
  • File:Armenia Niderland Locator.png

please Change the file name as

  • File:Armenia Czech_Republic Locator.png
  • File:Armenia Netherlands Locator.png

that Wikipedia categories can read this file like this [32]

[33] [34]

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Modern Sciences: Please use the {{Rename}} template. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Modern Sciences: RenameLink is better if you have JavaScript enabled.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@Yann and Jeff G.: thanks both of you for gudiness[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Modern Sciences: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nissan2021

Please check the contributions of Nissan2021 (talk · contribs). Seems another sockpuppet of Yuiyui2001 (talk · contribs). See also the history at File:Ph fil zamboanga del sur.png. I also suggest locking up the file as it is a frequent target of that vandal. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Hammerbrooklyn.DigitalCampus&oldid=617349885

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Hammerbrooklyn.DigitalCampus&oldid=617349885

Please hide offending edit comment from edit history. C.Suthorn (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User Some1234567890

Just a heads up that I fully blocked this user for vandalising AN and POTD Gbawden (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2022 PD

We have category:Undelete in 2022 to deal with, but please be careful: Buildings may be undeleted without any issues, but most paintings, sculptures, and photographs are not eligible due to the URAA provisions. In the 70+ countries this means they have to be created before 31 December 1926 to be free. If they are not, reset the undeletion year. Ymblanter (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

constantely Copy right violation by Mahsa7979

95 percent of uploads of this user which add to commons is not own work of this users, All taken from google image. This user upload google images as own work.

they are taken from pages like this

[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Last warning sent. All copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request backlog

Just wanted to bump another reminder that there are several protected edit requests backlogged at COM:EP (some of which have been there for several months or more). Some of them seem minor (such as those for flags) so they would probably be quick to fix. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 04:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help with list of files in deletion request

A question being a relatively new admin. Usually I can easily delete or keep files in a long list in a deletion request, using the link "del" or "keep" after the filename. But this list, dating from May - which I would like to close, does not show these links. How can this be solved? It is tedious to open each file and to keep or delete it by "hand". Ellywa (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ellywa: Please try it now. The closed sections are in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Burj Khalifa/closed, moved there for ease in closing section 21.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 21:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: . Thanks so much, smart! The keep and delete are available at each file name. I will get to it tomorrow I hope. Ellywa (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ellywa: You're welcome!   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 22:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Australian colourful identity Thomas Sewell

File:Australian colourful identity Thomas Sewell.jpg was uploaded today, and added as the main image for the Wikipedia article w:Thomas Sewell (Australian neo-Nazi). At the same time, the editor Skylarkeraus made several other dubious edits to the article, which I reverted as vandalism.

So far as I can tell File:Australian colourful identity Thomas Sewell.jpg is not w:Thomas Sewell (Australian neo-Nazi). The small size of the image (501 × 699) and minimal metadata on the file makes me suspicious of the file - normally I would expect more for something that is claimed to be "own work". I'm not sure what should be done here, but at the least I think the image should be removed from Category:Far-right politics, Category:Crime, Category:Criminals, Category:Nationalism, since such categorisation may be libelous to the person depicted. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I nominated the file for regular deletion. Taivo (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confess the guilt

I can honestly say that the pictures I have uploaded so far are from https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/. I accept being blocked, even infinite blocks. But please tell me if the pictures I upload are free, even if it's not free, what permission should be tagged? Buồn ngủ quá⁂ 5 phút nữa ⁂ 09:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allow ping you: @Yann: Buồn ngủ quá⁂ 5 phút nữa ⁂ 09:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The section "Copyright Status of Webpages" of that site states:
"Information that is created by or for the US government on this site is within the public domain. Public domain information on the National Library of Medicine (NLM) Web pages may be freely distributed and copied. However, it is requested that in any subsequent use of this work, NLM be given appropriate acknowledgment.
This site contains resources which incorporate material contributed or licensed by individuals, companies, or organizations that may be protected by U.S. and foreign copyright laws. These include, but are not limited to PubMed Central (PMC) (see PMC Copyright Notice), Bookshelf (see Bookshelf Copyright Notice), OMIM (see OMIM Copyright Status), and PubChem. All persons reproducing, redistributing, or making commercial use of this information are expected to adhere to the terms and conditions asserted by the copyright holder. Transmission or reproduction of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use (PDF) as defined in the copyright laws requires the written permission of the copyright owners."
So, part may be in the PD, part may be not. Therefore, for each of your uploads from that site you need to provide the URL of the exact site, from which you had taken it, as this should contain information about the true creator/copyright-holder. --Túrelio (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CAT:Nguyễn Thùy Chi

Please move this category to CAT:Chi Pu, as Chi Pu is the most common name of her. Thanks in advance. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 08:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you do that yourself? 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, forgot that I have suppressredirect. Nevermind. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 22:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]