User talk:Mdaniels5757

This is Mdaniels5757’s talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Mdaniels5757.

• This is not a forum for general discussion of the page’s subject.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• New to Commons? Check out the project scope. Ask questions, get answers.

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 60 days.

Archives Pre-2022 2022 2023

File:Josef Schneiderka matrika O.jpeg

because the registry entries are from an unknown author (registrar) and are freely accessible and a free work martin wolf

User:Deletion Notification Bot 2

Hi Mdaniels, the bot seems to be stuck. It has stopped working since 6 days ago. 0x0a (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@0x0a Fixed. Thanks for letting me know. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757 stuck again? Tehonk (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757 Hi, will this bot work again? Tehonk (talk) 22:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Tehonk Fixed again. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757 thank you for the fix, it was indeed fixed but it seems it's broken again? Tehonk (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tehonk Ugh. It should be fixed for good now? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be running intermittently with some 24 hour gaps, since its return on the 16th. At the time I'm writing this comment, the most recent notification served by the bot was 27h30m ago. Belbury (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Belbury Thanks for letting me know. This appears to have been due to a different issue: some sort of error parsing the recentchanges feed. A restart fixed it, but I'll try to keep an eye on it. Please be sure to let me know again if you notice any issues. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, will do. And thanks for running a very useful bot! Belbury (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you look why?

I changed my interface language to Urdu today and it appears that there comes an additional link to COM:دیوان عام above COM:Village Pump. Village pump is called دیوان عام in Urdu and there should exist only one link. The page at COM:دیوان عام is nonetheless spam which I nominated for deletion. Do you know why it appears double? ─ Aafī (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@TheAafi Odd, was it fixed by your edit to MediaWiki:Village pump/ur? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I noticed Community Portal was mistranslated at translatewiki and I fixed the translation and translated it into چوپال. However, I couldn't locate a string for Village Pump there and attempted a translation here. There's an issue currently: The Urdu version for Community Portal - چوپال - leads one to COM:دیوان عام (which it shoudn't. It should go to the Urdu version of Commons:چوپال, and until then the base version at Commons:Community portal) and the Urdu version for Village Pump - دیوان عام - leads one to COM:Village Pump, which seems fine as village pump here isn't currently available in Urdu. The fix to Community portal should come from translatewiki I suppose, given that MediaWiki:Portal-url/ur was deleted long ago and has a string that comes from elsewhere. A quick fix would be to override and create the page at MediaWiki:Portal-url/ur. ─ Aafī (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@TheAafi Made the change to MediaWiki:Portal-url/ur (and redirected Commons:چوپال to the base community portal), was that what you wanted/did it work? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757. Perfect. Thank you! ─ Aafī (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Importer for Yug

Hello Mdaniels, I just got confirmation that Lingualibre v3 is on track. Still 6 months away, but we need help to push forward. Could you guide us Importer for Yug and create that phabricator ticket ?

« Lingualibre is not in the list of supported wikis to import from, that will need to be changed (I can file the phab task if you need once we agree that this should be done). »

Yug (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Yug I'm not comfortable creating a ticket without some level of community support (ideally, support sufficient for a steward to grant the transwiki importer flag). —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, ok. We need to gather support first then. Thank you. Yug (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

File:BSHS Products.jpg

File:BSHS Products.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

John Morgan Image File.

Hello @Mdaniels5757

Please find this message with regards to the message you left on my talk page:

I have been re-uploading the file for several reasons. I initially was uploading the file under the incorrect Creative Commons license, as I am a new user to Wikipedia, but have now been advised that it cannot be uploaded in this way as it doesn't hold any type of Creative Commons license.

Because of this, upon my most recent upload, I listed it as being in the public domain, which I believe to be true, as the image is available on Artuk.org for free download, and is currently displayed as part of the National Trust collection, in Tredegar House, Newport, Wales.

As it is in the public domain, I have credited the image appropriately, by including the following caption beneath it: John Morgan, Portrayed by Leonard Fuller, 1950

Furthermore, I have also been advised that, if I contacted the heir of the original painter, L J Fuller, then they could give me copyright permission to use the image.

I would like to ask you, @Mdaniels5757 , to allow me to use this file, under the "public domain" copyright status, as there are only two pictures of John Morgan in the public domain (of which this is one), I have no way of contacting L J Fuller's heir, and that there is no copyright status held against the image, as it is truly in the public domain - As I have mentioned, being on display in Tredegar House, and being free to download on Artuk.org.

I hope that this message helps convey my issues with the deletion of the image, and why, in my most recent upload, I have attached appropriate copyright status.

Regards, Mac Edmunds Mac Edmunds (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Mac Edmunds. Unfortunately, the image is still copyrighted, and being on display or available on the internet for free does not change that. (See COM:NETCOPYRIGHT and the invalid arguments listed at COM:PRP.) In the United Kingdom, paintings by known authors are copyrighted for 70 years after the author dies. Leonard John Fuller died in 1973, so the painting will be public domain under UK law on January 1, 2044. Until then, absent a license, it cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Depression image

ref https://pixabay.com/illustrations/depressed-depression-despair-abuse-8268865 Hi totally accept your questioning, but after having misunderstood the license rules I then approached the original artist and he uploaded to wiki himself. If you message him he might have a way of proving to you that he is the long-standing Pixabay artist.

p.s. do you think the image is ok for fatigue? It was the best I found; I felt it gave some sense of bleak inner heaviness and weight and inability to move much/at all.

Best wishes Asto77 (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Asto77. That's great, thank you for reaching out to the original artist. I sent a message with links to COM:VRT and COM:RELGEN to their Wikimedia Commons account, but if you have another way of approaching them, please feel free to let them know that way as well. Since the image was previously published elsewhere, we will need emailed permission from the original artist through the process at those links. And yes, I think the image is good for fatigue. Best, —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Rights changed

Jesus, you scared me with you changing my user rights XD. All best, A09 (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@A09 Haha, sorry about that :)! —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Deletion Notification Bot 2 --- File:Ministre de l'education nationale Abdelhakim Belaabed.jpg

I hereby affirm that I'am the creator and the owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work. G21fouad (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@G21fouad This will not count as permission, please go to COM:RELGEN and follow the prompts. Thanks, —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Flag of Virginia.svg

Hi there, reaching out because you protected both File:Flag of Virginia.svg and File:Seal of Virginia.svg back in December to administrators only. I've been working on an update to hopefully (fingers crossed) address most of the issues that led to the edit warring, and am ready to upload. Could you perhaps reduce the level of protection on these two? Perhaps to either extended or autoconfirmed users? Thanks for the help with this! -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 13:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Patrickneil I'd like to see some amount of consensus before changing the files. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand that. I left a link to my proposed changes on the Flag talk page a week ago, but I haven't received any feedback. Let me ping the other participants, but if there's still no response in another week, would you then be open to lowering the level of protection? I note that several of the participants from last year's dispute haven't been active since, and those accounts seem to be more of the throw-away variety. -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 15:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Patrickneil I'd give the participants a couple days, then post to COM:VP and ask for feedback there. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Deleted images.

The images deleted by you due to Can't find permissions are photographs that belong to me and I want to share. The elimination of these images does not make any sense because it is the same author who is publishing them, so through this message these images are republished, which despite being the author, are for public use and anyone can use them , thank you!

images:Torre del Milenio San Salvador.png, Templo Mormón de San Salvador El Salvador.jpg, Torre del Pedregal.png, San Benito Wiki.jpg, Estadio Cuscatlán San Salvador.png, Palacio Nacional de El Salvador.jpg, San Salvador.jpg. 4evermediapro (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@4evermediapro Please send permission using the form at COM:RELGEN to permissions-commonswikimedia.org. If the permission is accepted, the photos will be undeleted. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Indefinite decision

Almost every person opposed an indefinite block of A1Cafel. What was the point if the extensive discussions if you just choose to unilaterally ignore them? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock2 I'm not sure where you get "almost every person" from. But I read and considered all comments, including yours.

Commons policy says that blocks are to protect the project, not to punish. I think that long, definite blocks are often punitive: they send the message that the user can come back in (e.g.) a year, change nothing, and continue doing what got them blocked in the first place, because they've "served their time". If we really want to make clear that a user is welcome to come back whenever they can commit to improving their conduct (as Commons policy requires), we cannot set the day they may come back in advance.

Additionally, an issue with suggesting A1Cafel be blocked for a year, then re-blocked for another year if the behavior continues (and then possibly another year, and maybe another), is that (1) it takes time for bad behavior to be noticed (2) it takes time for an admin to become convinced that another block is necessary, possibly after another noticeboard discussion or 3 in which yet more editor time is spent, and (3) it takes time to clean up after the mistakes A1Cafel makes. This does not serve the purpose for which blocks are imposed: protecting the Commons from disruption.

Finally, I note that indefinite could well be shorter than a year in this case. If, as you suggested, A1Cafel's "life circumstances" change earlier, such that A1Cafel can commit to improvements in his editing, A1Cafel can (and if he wishes to, should) submit an unblock request. This would be equally true if I had imposed a one-year block. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Chris.sherlock; there was no consensus to indef A1Cafel. Your idealistic view of indeffing is not possible in practice— indefinite functionally means permanent because of the catch-22 that a blocked user cannot improve their behavior, but must improve their behavior to get unblocked. I specifically opposed action against A1 in this context because the case presented was insufficient on its own merits; by blocking him on the basis of an overall behavior pattern you effectively subjected him to double jeopardy. Dronebogus (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

There was literally one person who called for an indefinite block, everyone else wanted lower block amounts. I personally wanted a year long block, others wanted 2 week blocks, some thought a month would be sufficient - consensus was building for progressive blocks. If you took the discussion into account, on what part of the commentary did you base your decision on? Would you be willing for me to ask on ANU for a review of your decision?

I respect your decisions as an admin overall, but disagree in this instance - I think you got it wrong. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Dronebogus and Chris.sherlock2: I'll try to reply to both of you at once.

Regarding the number of people calling for indef, there were 3: Stemoc, Strakhov, and Infrogmation. (And sort of RodRabelo7, who struck their support of an indef block because they believed (as do I) that A1Cafel should be able to "request unblocking after some time").

Regarding unblocks: perhaps other admins take an approach in reviewing unblock requests that results in the Catch-22 Dronebogus mentions, but I do not: I will unblock A1Cafel if he can, at any point, identify the reasons he was blocked, and for each reason, come up with one change he would make that would help address the problem--I don't think demonstrating a change in behavior is needed.

Here's an example of what I would find sufficient to unblock, from an old issue (which I did not consider when blocking, but which he could address, and is welcome to copy or modify, anyways): "Reason 1: I uploaded a lot of duplicate files. Reason 2: Then I nominated the old ones for deletion as duplicates of my new ones. Change 1: I will spot-check some files in each batch upload I do to try to prevent duplicate uploads. Change 2: If I do upload a duplicate by accident, I will open the history of both files, determine which one was old and which was new, and will mark only the new one for deletion.".

This is all to say: the bar for me granting an unblock request here is quite low. I will leave a note on A1Cafel's talk asking to be pinged before declining an unblock request (as COM:BP only requests consultation when granting): I think I can make sure that what Dronebogus described does not occur here.

Regarding the double jeopardy concerns: the incident prompting the discussion was indeed minor, probably worthy of a talk page note only. But it was just the straw that broke the camel's back. I did consider all of the past issues, but mostly just to the extent they were still happening: e.g. the duplicates were old, but the lack of communication was continuing. Perhaps this mitigates your concern, or perhaps not.

Regarding challenging my decision: of course, either or both of you are welcome to bring this to an appropriate forum for review. I'm actually not sure whether it would belong on COM:AN, COM:AN/BP, or COM:AN/UP, but you are welcome to bring it to any of them. I'd just ask that you coordinate enough that you don't post two separate requests at the same time. No need to notify/template me here, just a reply here or a ping is fine. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)