Commons:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 367: Line 367:
::::: The GPS data, along with the very low resolutions, still make these uploads worth an independent pair of eyes to examine the EXIF data. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
::::: The GPS data, along with the very low resolutions, still make these uploads worth an independent pair of eyes to examine the EXIF data. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
:::::: My guess is that what is extracted here is the assembly batch number. The phone is Korean make, sold over the internet. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User talk:Guido den Broeder|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
:::::: My guess is that what is extracted here is the assembly batch number. The phone is Korean make, sold over the internet. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User talk:Guido den Broeder|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
:{{re|Fæ}} I am 95% certain Lyrda (who participated in the DRs) is an undetected Roadcreature/Guido den Broeder sock. - [[User talk:Alexis Jazz|Alexis Jazz]] <sup><small>ping plz</small></sup> 15:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


== Gallery name ==
== Gallery name ==

Revision as of 15:45, 13 June 2019

Shortcut: COM:AN

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new section] 		User problems
[new section] 		Blocks and protections
[new section] 		Other
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.


Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.


Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.


Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.

Archives
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

Note

  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • Notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.


Slight backlog (!)

Greetings fellow admins: Please take a few minutes to help out at Category:Media missing permission where we have over 500 photos needing review and over 500 in the queue for tomorrow. Thank you for your help! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How comes this backlog is not really showing here? — Racconish 💬 18:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring the file which received OTRS permission

The file File:Христина Шишпор.jpg received a permission in OTRS, so it has to be restored. --TohaomgTohaomg (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tohaomg: done Gbawden (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tohaomg: Please post such requests to COM:UDR in the future.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC – Global ban for Meister und Margarita

I have created a RfC at Meta for User:Meister und Margarita, a member of this community. The RfC can be found at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Meister und Margarita. All are invited to participate. --Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Meister’s Commons contributions look negligible – this ban is a Wikipedia business. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With several thousand edits and ongoing contributions using one of his sockpuppets I felt Commons was a project in which the user had significant involvement. According to the rules for m:global bans I informed this community about the RfC. --Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly, could you eventuelly list all relevant related SPs (or link to the page where they are listed). Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...if they are continuing to edit via sockpuppets after being blocked for harassment that is indeed a problem. Even if it is only in their userspace as is the current situation for MichelidesPeralta. The data might be stale by now but if possible perhaps, Elcobbola or Magog the Ogre can take a peak and perhaps see how many other accounts we are dealing with? --Majora (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From data available on the Commons, MichelidesPeralta is technically Unrelated to other accounts. MichelidesPeralta's de.wiki block was 17. Mai 2018 so data, if a CU was even done, would be Stale (Meister und Margarita is, of course, stale here as well). However, that two unrelated accounts would both know about and edit bizarre (and inappropriate) subpages in user space--User:MichelidesPeralta/Next Stolperstein shooting and User talk:MichelidesPeralta/future--seems a duck relationship. Quack. Эlcobbola talk 15:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MichelidesPeralta’s contributions beyond the user space are virtually zero. Not practically “our” user. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If they are indeed a sockpuppet they cannot edit at all except to request unblock from their original account on their original talk page which they still have access to. Allowing a sockpuppet to edit at all, even if it is just in user space, defeats the entire purpose of the block. Even more so considering this block was for repeated harassment (which the entire Wikimedia movement is trying, and somewhat failing, to stamp out). I'm not entirely comfortable with blocking simply because of another project's CU results which is why I'm asking for one of ours to take a look. Hopefully the data isn't too old. --Majora (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Majora: was Pinneberger Bote (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) a meatpuppet or Meister/Michelides himself? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, Incnis Mrsi, I never really gave the distinction much thought at the time. The Pinneberger Bote account harassed the same person (JD) on the same day while I was dealing with Meister. My gut feeling looking back at it was that it was probably a meatpuppet that supported Meister at dewiki and decided to join in on the harassment of JD here but I don't have anything other than my gut to go on. Their dewiki block does list "meatpuppet" as the reason so certainly possible they were two different people. --Majora (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Túrelio: I don't think there is a definite list of all sockpuppets, but I tried collecting at least the ones from the various CUs on deWP, enWP and itWP:

There are probably more I missed that weren't blocked using CU. --Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite more, blocked only after notice on administrator desk; the German Wikipedia has - unfortunately - no templates or categories like "... is a sock of ...", sometimes it is queite difficult to get knowledge about such block. -jkb- (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Christian Michelides (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) has significant contributions, hence it’s indeed about Commons as well. By the way, Donna Gedenk uploads many photos attributed to one Christian Michelides. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Batch task not working?

I am currently unable to run batch tasks with VisualFileChange. It returns the following error message: "Error: An error occurred setting up the selection dialog. ##### ReferenceError: 'require' is undefined". I have tried with three different browsers. Is this a known problem? Castillo blanco (talk) 10:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that tools like VFC may get broken and remain broken indefinitely. There is a deeper discussion to be had about how the Wikimedia Commons community might change that situation. --Fæ (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's unacceptable--Vera (talk) 11:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, stuffs can happen and remain that way indefinitely. People might lose interest, burn out, have priorities, or be unable to contribute. As volunteers, there is nothing to hold us here. And given our absolutely gigantic codebase and the few JS coders, there is no way we can keep up with all the deprecations / removals and all the developments within MediaWiki without help from MediaWiki developers, who in this case has alerted the near-future removal of a certain dependency; so be thankful to them. Unless there is an 'endless supply' of those who are willing to contribute to and maintain our ever-growing codebase, this is how it is, unfortunately. Therefore, I encourage all of you, if you have the time and energy, to learn how stuffs work, and fix bugs / implement new features, and even create your own tools. We are happy to answer any technical questions. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Reverted − please test and confirm whether this resolves the issue. Jean-Fred (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you unbroke it. Thank you! Castillo blanco (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The old version is a time bomb which will break next week. I'll see if I can get VFC to using completely ResourceLoader, but expect short-time breakages. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(gtg will be back later) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the module loading to ResourceLoader. Please ping me if any issues arise. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zhuyifei or Perhelion, there is a chain of other stuff that has also to be changed now:
This leads to a general question: Shouldn’t we better move Help:VisualFileChange.js to Help:VisualFileChange? This certainly would need a translation admin.
— Speravir – 02:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved the core script ones. I don't have an opinion on the i18n ones and the version tags.
  • Yes, but... what is the point of this numeric version?
  • I think I fixed that. Does it work now?
  • I like that idea --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh gosh. Looking at this again, you said opinion not option. I'm sorry. I totally misread that and when I checked myself I also don't have an option under the "more" drop down to move (probably because I'm not an interface admin) which just reinforced my incorrect reading. I'm sorry for writing something you probably, obviously, knew. Again, my apologies. --Majora (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zhuyifei, regarding the version numbering: I do not know either, especially about the need to present them visibly. But the number is embedded in different places, and this would have to be removed from these. (It is also presented on the script form, so the number is used inside of the script or its childs.)
Regarding your change for script execution on the help page: I use the Perfect Chaos‘ script remindErrorMessages and get with this an error, alas I do not get an explanation, why. It seems to be executed, though, and I could select files I have uploaded, but I did not check further. — Speravir – 01:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion for all on your user page or on the talk page for the script?
— Speravir – 01:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the version is more for cache invalidation and error reporting. Now that it uses ResourceLoader The former is mostly moot.
  • I don't get what remindErrorMessages does or what error message it displays. Could you clarify?
  • I don't see why this discussion has to be moved; though if you deem necessary I prefer the script talk page --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Embarrassingly I did not check that Help:VisualFileChange already exists for years. Coincedently I noticed that for another tool the help page is Help:Gadget-GallerySlideshow, so with Gadget, but without the file extension. What are other’s opinions regarding a move? — Speravir – 01:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Covert advertisng

I'm raising this here so that those more familiar with Commons policies than me can decide what to do... The North Face have recently been engaged in a covert advertising project on Wikipedia (see this article), which, on Wikipedia, is not permitted. I know Commons has opted out of the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use with regards to paid editing, so undisclosed paid editing is not an issue here, but the use of Commons for advertising purposes may be actionable. The user responsible is User:Gmortaia (already blocked on en-wiki). Admins here can decide what - if anything - needs doing; I'm just making you aware. Back to en-wiki for me! Yunshui (talk) please ping me when replying; I'm rarely on Commons 08:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have an issue here. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Fhpatucci‎. Could you please ask for a check user request? Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that our category pages are being used to list user accounts who are being investigated/blocked at Category:The North Face Wikipedia advertising campaign. The text there should be neutral "These images were used in an advertising campaign on Wikipedia" and make no judgement nor should they list users. That belongs on other forums. Also, Wikipedians should be aware the Commons is not censored wrt logos, and contains lots of media donated by publicity departments or agents. The problem was the abuse on Wikipedia, and potential copyvio/sock issues on Commons. -- Colin (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some have been deleted. @Elcobbola: I've requested the deletion of the remaining ones: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The North Face Wikipedia advertising campaign --Discasto talk 16:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An image I made will not upload because it is a popular image for the subject i dont want personal attribution but to give credit to the person who cam up with the most relevant image for the topic. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by TorsionFields (talk • contribs) 03:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

@TorsionFields: If you are not the photographer, you are not allowed to upload it here without a formal written permission from the copyright holder. That's the reason you were not able to upload your file, i.e. the filter works as intended. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a drawing I made a diagram When you go to Bing and search torsion field the image i designed and drew in photoshop is the number one image so the algo is blocking me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TorsionFields (talk • contribs) 10:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TorsionFields: Hi, and welcome. I am sorry to inform you that you have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/153 by trying to cross-wiki upload a png image as a new user while leaving the summary intact. Such uploads of png images are not allowed at all. You said it's your own work. Usually when someone uploads a png image, it's a copyright violation taken from the web. Please upload the full-size original of it, including EXIF metadata, but it may be judged too complex to be under TOO in the country of origin, so you may need to license it on your website or social media or send permission via OTRS. Also, any png image will look fuzzy when scaled down or jaggy when scaled up, so you may want to upload an svg or jpg version, too. If you change the summary or use our Upload Wizard instead, you should be able to avoid that filter.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Request for Kept Files

I previously filed deletion request, and later withdrawn it. A regular user then closed the request, but forgot to clear the templates on all the listed files in the deletion request, and add Template:Kept in all of the file talk pages. Would any administrator could kindly assist with this? Thank you.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have autoremoved the DR template, but don't know how to autoadd the DR notice on the file talks. Materialscientist (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Materialscientist: If you can give me temporary AWB access, I can do it - I have AWB access on enwiki and know how to use it, and will give up the permissions when done, since I don't have the 200 edits needed for full AWB rights here on commons. I'll only use the rights to add {{kept|2019-05-27|Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ton1-bot}} to the pages. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could do that myself, if I knew how to generate the list of those files in AWB. Materialscientist (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Materialscientist: deletion discussion page -> links on page -> convert to talk --DannyS712 (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Materialscientist and DannyS712: Thank you for both of your assistance!廣九直通車 (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@廣九直通車: well I didn't actually do anything, but you're welcome --DannyS712 (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

mass porn/copyvio uploads nuked and uploader blocked

This morning new Xpotty (talk · contribs) has uploaded a batch of some 300 files of amateur porn/erotic images, copied from different websites (many from poringa.net), twitter, etc., obviously copyvios as well as out of scope. After succesfully searching the web for sources/hits for >100 of these files, I've nuked the remaining. I've blocked, for now indef, the account for uploading only copyvios and out-of-scope images. --Túrelio (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

bypass upload restriction

Is there any option to bypass the 100MB upload restriction for the upload?
I'm working on open movies by the blender foundation right now and I woul like to add some more videos. You can upload files up to 4 GB from whitelisted pages, but it doesn't seem that there are any type of sharehosters in them.
The file has ~165 MB and I would like to keept it that big since it's a 4K video and the original that was published by the Blender Animation Studios. --D-Kuru (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@D-Kuru: Please try User:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js. Documentation is on the talk page.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That did work! Thanks for your fast and on the spot help! --D-Kuru (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@D-Kuru: You're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@D-Kuru: Special:UploadWizard should also allow uploading of bigger files. Other alternatives are uploading to YouTube and importing with COM:V2C, but that will result in quality loss. I'm not sure if you can upload to your own website and import without quality loss with V2C. Flickr also allows video, not sure if there would be quality loss there. Uploading to archive.org is also possible. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Overdue high-profile copyvio cases

Commons needs two admins volunteers.

Files uploaded by Thatonewikiguy

Several copyvios on which consensus for deletion is expressed, but they are online during some months. The uploader is not interested in the case of self. For personal reasons the request also intertwines with that scandal. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by Hoang42006

The user indeffed for trolling by means of uploading illegitimate DWs. Blatant F3 and garbage already deleted (mostly by Ymblanter), but there are several pictures by chance not depending on anything copyrightable. An admin should certify it, at last. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization issues on the current MOTD caption

The caption for the current MOTD is:

Animation of Gears including epicyclic gears and a Rack and pinion

This contains two mis-capitalized links. It should be changed to

Animation of gears including epicyclic gears and a rack and pinion

(I've previously been told that AN is the correct place to report such issues.) GKFXtalk 19:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Thank you for reporting. --Majora (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr Review needing humans backlog

A heads up/request to all admins and other image reviewers: We currently have a large backlog of images in Category:Flickr images needing human review. At the moment I'm writing this, we have 5,238 files needing review. Any help to clear this backlog would be greatly appreciated (especially since I'm about to have limited to no internet access for a couple of weeks). --Elisfkc (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I clicked through all the files starting with "Q" (yes, I’m that lazy!) and they all were correctly licensed in our file pages, comparing with the respective originals in Flickr (one CC-by-sa and the rest CC-zero) — I suppose some kind of glitch occurred, not that the Flickr photographers changed their mind, twice. Couldn’t the bot be asked to run again over these? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin: yes - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Flickr user and Flickr are doing some updates to their site, so some APIs and functions are currently down. I'm guessing this is a result of it, and that the bot can't check the photos currently (causing them all to fail). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Josve05a: No they're passing - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, it was just a guess, since smeof their functions are currently down. But in that case, don't mind me :) --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexis Jazz: Could please undo all your massive editions. You've consistently removed the license tag from all pictures. Thanks --Discasto talk 06:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Discasto: Damn, I forgot a detail, but what you say is not true. The license tag was only removed if it came after the Flickr review (which is bad practice) and on the same line. Any other case, it wasn't removed. And if FlickreviewR found the file at Flickr, it would re-add the license. I'll take a look at the files. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So you removed the license tag of many of the files. I'm relieved to find it out. --Discasto talk 09:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Discasto: 142 files. I re-added the license. About 5,000 files passed review this time, so yeah, this was useful. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-US-expired}} edit request

Could a template-savvy admin review my edit request at Template_talk:PD-US-expired#Add_parameters_to_suppress_the_"U.S._work"_warning? The change has been pending for about two weeks. It may take a little while to carry out because it requires a change to all the language subtemplates. I also appreciate that this is a heavily-used template, so more eyes on the change would be good, too. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trish Regan.jpg

File:Trish Regan.jpg looks like flickrwashing.--Roy17 (talk) 01:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done @Roy17: These can be marked with {{SD|F6}} in the future. --Majora (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Batch move

Hi, can someone move all the files in Category:Mississipi (state) to Category:Mississippi (state) and create a redirect (Mississipi is a common spelling error of Mississippi). 大诺史 (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@大诺史: ✓ Done.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File strangely prone to bad captions edits

For some unfathomable reason, my photo File:Waehlscheibe-kurzwahlnummern.jpg seems to be especially prone to unhelpful edits to the captions by not logged in users, see the history. Mostly mobile web edits, strange things like adding the English text wrongly as a French caption and removing the perfectly valid English and German caption, adding (telephone?) numbers as captions and so on. Not one of these IP edits was helpful. I think I should semi-protect that file (only autoconfirmed users), what do you think? I find it a bit strange that this particular file (used in some, but not that many Wikipedia and Wiktionary articles) attracts so many nonsense edits (they don't look like intentional vandalism, though, more like attempts at doing something by users who don't understand the system). Any ideas what might be the reason? Gestumblindi (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Semi-protected for one year. Yann (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of about 270 images

Hello,

In 2018, the Museum of Arts and History of Geneva gave permission to take photographs in its collection with a tripod, pending conditions on publications. Recently, we were given permission to publish, but due to a misunderstanding, the images were uploaded in full resolution; instead, the museum requires a maximum resolution of 1200×1200 pixels.

I would therefore need to have the whole content of Category:Wik-nic_at_MAHG,_19_August_2018 deleted. I suppose reason G7 would apply. Sorry about this whole affair. Rama (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can delete them as G7, but please be aware that 'the museum requires a maximum resolution of 1200×1200 pixels' is a restriction that is not compatible with Commons. Jcb (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcb: If that requirement actually refers to the quality (so they don't care if someone blows an image up to 2000×2000 or creates a collage) and it's not published anywhere else, it would be possible in practice. And I assume it is about quality, which is often expressed in pixels. Which can be misleading, but anyway. Potential issue here could be that the full resolution has already been online. Anyway, @Rama: I suggest cropping tightly. And maybe crop some closeups. And if the museum ceases to exist at some point in the future (or ownership changes and the new owner is not interested in working with you), upload the full resolution! - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the best known and largest art museums in Switzerland, it is unlikely that it ceases to exist anytime soon (it exists since 1826) or changes the owner (I believe the owner is the canton of Geneva).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcb: yes the requirement was a shorthand way to limit the overall quality of the images — even more than my limited talents, that is.
@Alexis Jazz: In fact the whole matter is all the more absurd that visitors are free to photograph without a tripod or a flash. I have already taken a number of high-resolution photographs of most of the items depicted (see the sub-categories in Category:Egyptian antiquities in the Musée d'Art et d'Histoire (Geneva)). The tripod gave a few photographs that were significantly better than what I had otherwise, but in most cases the difference is not vastly significant. We are doing lots of tedious work to vandalise images that we do not really need — they were marginally better and they were a symbol of an attempt at a partnership that is acquiring a bitter taste.
@Ymblanter: Or the city? Anyway, entrance is free so we can go there over and over again until we have high-resolution images of all the permanent collections!
Thank you all very much for your support, which makes the experience less unpleasant to me. Cheers! Rama (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that 1200px² is not a problem with our policy — they're willing to donate exceptionally good images of their collections, but they don't want to publish really large images themselves. It's basically "You can use our equipment if you do it in a certain way". I'm sorry that this didn't work well from a collaboration standpoint. Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1200×1200 max is a perfectably acceptable condition for the Museum to impose. Why ever not? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A release into a CC license is for a work, not for a specific resolution of that work. Jcb (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are quite wrong on that. The CC licence applies to whatever the copyright holder wishes to license: their choice. If they choose to never license the full resolution version, but to freely license a moderately sized one (such as 1200×1200) they're at liberty to do this. They might even (perfectly validly, and commonly done) also release a small 'comping' image as CC0 or similar, without even requiring attribution. Their CC licence on the 1200 version is entirely valid and we should respect it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Separate agreements are not contradictory nor to the CC license, nor to the USA copyright law, neither to our policies (in the extend that those separate agreements are not contradictory with the points quoted under "must" and "must not" inside our policy. "the museum requires a maximum resolution of 1200×1200 pixels" is 1/curently fully compatible with Commons 2/possible if they are the copyright holder 3/possible if they add the separate agreement at the same time of the first publication of the work under the CC license. But here, if I well understood, this seems to be a different thing : a kind of agreement between the photographer(s) and the museum, therefore the request here is the request from the uploader(s), not the request of the museum. And it is of course absolutely normal to access this kind of request, which otherwise would put the uploaders in a bad position at least on the moral plane regarding their agreement with the museum, and also damaging for potential future agreements with the museum. Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you gave those links, the CC license is quite clear: it does not apply to a specific resolution, indeed, but it does accept separate agreements/restrictions, that's all. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But they may or may not be enforceable. But technically you're right. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can't chose only the licensing terms that arrange you. The licensing terms are the license(s) + the separate agreements (if ever). The only case where you can ignore the separate agreements is when they have been added after a prior publication under a CC license. It is not marked anywhere in the CC licenses, that the CC licenses prevails over other potential conditions. Usually the more restrictive apply, even when contradictory to the less restrictive, from where the interest to add separate agreements. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but then you have no longer a CC license, but a new license that differs from a CC license. If such a new license is to be used, we will first have to discuss it as a community and if we would a approve it, we would need to create a license template for it. Jcb (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quite agreed. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have created a situation quite at variance to the actuality here. The Geneva Musuem are not contrasting a licence for 1200 resolution to a licence for other resolutions, they are simply refusing to release content over 1200, not merely to do so under another licence. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have not created anything, I just say "CC does not apply to a specific resolution, indeed, but it does accept separate agreements/restrictions", and that is written in the CC website. EOD for me. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CC licences only apply to material that is released as such. If they simply don't release higer resolution copies (at all), a CC licence is no letter of marque to go and raid their archives for something more! Andy Dingley (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the former version of photos

I uploaded some photos. For some reason, I edited and re-uploaded them as an updated verison for the file. Better not keeping the former one, can I delete the original version? Should not using the Speedydelete temp right? Hf9631 (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hf9631: If you uploaded them recently taken them as SD|G7 - Author or uploader request deletion Gbawden (talk) 06:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gbawden: Thanks for your reply. Sorry, may you please explain what SD|G7 is. So I, as the author, can request deletion for the previous version of my uploads? Hf9631 (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hf9631: Sorry. add the tag SD|F7 in curly brackets to the files you want to delete Gbawden (talk) 06:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gbawden: Got it. Acutually, I mean the both versions of the photo seems to be saved as one file. Specifically, like my File:June9protestTreefong01.jpg has 2 versions, and I just want to delete the former version rather than the whole file. Is it possible to be done? Anyway thanks for the conscideration Hf9631 (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody please help? This may afftect the secrity of hundred citizen due to political issue, or I just delete them all. Hf9631 (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the original revision of File:June9protestTreefong01.jpg. If you'd requested deletion of the original image, that would be workable because it's new enough, and obviously the original revision of the file isn't currently in use anywhere, so the G7 requirements are satisfied. Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: Thank you so much! Chould you please do the same thing for File:June9protestTreefong02.jpg, 03.jpg, 08.jpg, 10.jpg, 11.jpg? Their condition are the same as the one you solved. That's all I ask. Love you 3000. Hf9631 (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: Hi mate, can you still make it? Or is it unsolvable? Please tell if any issue. Thank you. Hf9631 (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

27.4.189.204

Hi, Can someone please close these DRs, simply nonsense without any justification. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done think I got them all Gbawden (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correct approach?

I just want to make sure that my approach in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Biskup David Tencer.jpg is correct. As far as I'm aware, it is common to nominate images for deletion when there's an inconsistency between the photographer's name in the EXIF data and the uploader's name, and such images have been deleted in the past, right? I do very much understand and take to heart Jacek555's criticism there, because myself I really don't like our climate of mistrust (see also here), but I think that nomination is what we're expected to do to check such cases, right? Also I presume it's ok to mention the name from the EXIF data which is something, if I remember correctly, was also done in other DRs for similar cases? Gestumblindi (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is also my understanding that in such a situation an OTRS confirmation is needed and that it is up to the uploader to clarify on their user page such correlation or to to do so with OTRS and possibly to set afterwards a related template. — Racconish 💬 13:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen a situation where an admin here closed such deletion request with the rationale "no valid reason for deletion". It's really terrible here on Commons as it appears there is no standard. Some admins just do what they like here. T CellsTalk 18:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@T Cells: why did you change "approach" to "Appalachian"? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oops...I was editing from a mobile device and that was done in error. Thanks for fixing it. Regards. T CellsTalk 20:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In general, yes, that's definitely an appropriate approach. Glancing over the DR, I got the impression that other participants think that the identification is proven in some other way. We don't always demand the same process with everything, so maybe that's appropriate in this precise situation, but in general, please do nominate something for deletion if there is such an inconsistency. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral of Brasília

File:Brazil.Brasilia.01.jpg is used on a lot of pages, and we'll have to delete it. Instead of letting CommonsDelinker wreak havoc, I suggest we make CommonsDelinker replace File:Brazil.Brasilia.01.jpg with File:Catedral1 Rodrigo Marfan.jpg (the most similar I could find) before we delete the former. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done — Racconish 💬 17:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request to delete old versions of the following files

I am the uploader of the following files. I decided to re-upload them because they contained some private information in the EXIF. Therefore, I would like to request the old versions of these files to be deleted. If possible, I would also like old versions of the pages' history to be deleted if they previously contained the location template.

Thanks! --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke copyvios

Could an admin take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pressny1 - too many pics to tag for copyvio so would appreciate it if someone could nuke these. 07:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Deleted all in DR, one more speedy deleted. User warned. — Racconish 💬 07:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I'm posting this in the correct format, I was referred here from the Wikimedia Commons Info Team...

[NSFW] - File:Dydoes.jpg (erect penis)

At some point in the last decade, this file has been indexed and shared so thoroughly that if you google "arjo.reich" or "arjo reich" it is the top three search results and the rest of the results are of me.

The problem is that I have used that specific username (arjo.reich / arjoreich / arjo_reich) for all of my professional social branding - google, facebook, instagram, linkedin, github, amazon, microsoft, every msg-board, forum, slack channel, etc. for the last twenty years.

It has gotten to the point where it was pointed out to me by a job recruiter after a client decided to google the username from this email address. Please tell me there is some way to remove / change / _something_ the Author & Source of this file so it will slowly lose ranking when people search me. --69.244.196.22 13:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I changed Arjo to A., but I can't hide the upload comment. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For Wikipedia and your username (for which I created a redirect for sourcing purposes), use w:Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe an admin can hide the upload comment.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. In order to remove the upload comment a new version has to be uploaded (which seems incredibly stupid but whatever). I also had to remove a pixel since it won't let you overwrite with the exact same version. --Majora (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#John Bunyan Museum; account verified, see ticket:2019061010004985. Pinging Alexis Jazz and 1989. Regards, Bencemac (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Unblocked @Bencemac: please close the ticket by replying to them . Thanks. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fram

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Nothing important here. 1989 (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing one's Wikipedia ban as Fram does at User_talk:Fram#About_the_ban may not be the best of ideas. Of course reverts like this[1] are not very helpful either, and indicative of a combative attitude. Cheers, Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guido den Broeder is banned (for, if my count is correct, a third and final time) from enwiki on my instigation (but because of their own actions, and by community consensus). They are also indef blocked or banned at nlwiki, and at meta. They hardly edit Commons, but out of the blue are concerned about my use of my talk page on Commons, even though it didn't involve them in any way or shape. As I indicated in my revert of his post from my talk page, I find this rather ironic on multiple levels considering the circumstances. Fram (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fram's talk page use is fine, as the WMF removal of user talk page rights on Wikipedia remains highly controversial.
In the meantime, consider following mellow, trying to fan flames using this noticeboard is the opposite. If you don't like reading Fram's talk page, remove it from your watchlist; you will find that works most effectively. --Fæ (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The 'on my instigation' part is probably telling enough. A discussion of Fram's ban is likely to lead to a discussion of users banned on their instigation and soon there will be no end to it. Just take it elsewhere, we have policies against importing issues. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only one "importing issues" here is you, by creating this thread. Go do something productive instead of poking Fram because you are bored. Thanks so much! --Fæ (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

As Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has raised this odd thread, I could not help but take a brief look at their handful of uploads. The files in Category:Photographs by Guido den Broeder appear to be blatant copyright violations. Unfortunately this is not an accident as the EXIF data appears to my eyes to have been deliberately hacked to make the files look like own works, with EXIF data cloned and slightly adapted between images. Something that could easily be done with conventional EXIF editing tools.

I find this data completely convincing and consequently grounds for an indefinite block. Could a knowledgeable administrator take a careful look at those files, paying attention to the GPS data and unique image numbers in the EXIFs, and provide a second opinion?

P.S. the files are in very wide cross-wiki usage.

Thanks!

Additional: Commons:Deletion requests/File:20170314 155712 Kristina Pimenova 384x512.jpg, multiple DRs for this image, however none discussed the EXIF data.
Additional: File:20170315 003801 Kristina Pimenova 576x768.jpg was overwritten, with the original version having virtually no EXIF data.
--Fæ (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me. This has been discussed before, with the conclusion that these photographs are obviously made by me. You can find them on my Instagram and my Facebook, for instance, as well as on Wikisage, of an earlier date. You can also ask the peope that are displayed. And of course I have the originals, which are of higher resolution, and the mobile phone that I used to take the pictures. Or if you bother to look at IMdB or the Reigningent website, you will notice that I am executive producer of 'The Russian Bride'. You can also check the movie itself for that matter, it was released March 2019. Cheers, Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How do you explain "Unique image ID C12LSII00VM C12LSJI01GM" on more than one upload, when this should be impossible? --Fæ (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which uploads would that be? Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now. They all have the same image ID. I have no idea why that would be. Maybe someone who is more into technical matters could explain it to you. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. File:Комуз_.jpg (own work claim for User:Амальгама)
  2. File:20170315 003801 Kristina Pimenova 576x768.jpg
  3. File:20170313 165526 The Russian Bride 768x1024.jpg
  4. File:20170316 171306 The Russian Bride Corbin Bernsen 768x1024.jpg
  5. File:Sebastián Torrico.jpg (own work claim for User:Rodrigo768)
  6. File:Wat Suwan Dararam wihan - inside - 2017-02-13 (061).jpg (own work claim by User:Iudexvivorum)
There may be more, running a database search in parallel to writing this.
Please note that identical and very nearly identical GPS locations on files with different GPS timestamps is bizarre to see when from visibly different locations. These images were taken a few meters apart if the GPS data is correct and the EXIF data has not been edited. --Fæ (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked and every photo ever made with my mobile phone has the same image ID. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the same image ID appearing for the same mobile phone by other uploaders who appear unconnected apart from date and camera type, I agree this does appear a glitch in the phone software. Possibly limited to phones sold (perhaps adapted) in Russia.
The GPS data, along with the very low resolutions, still make these uploads worth an independent pair of eyes to examine the EXIF data. --Fæ (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that what is extracted here is the assembly batch number. The phone is Korean make, sold over the internet. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fæ: I am 95% certain Lyrda (who participated in the DRs) is an undetected Roadcreature/Guido den Broeder sock. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone that can enlighten me on this issue. Why is that the page for the element, Tantalum, exists as Category:Tantalum while the pages for other element exist with their respective names? i.e. Oxygen, Curium, etc. Can an admin move Category:Tantalum to Tantalum? Thank you. 大诺史 (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=354373204"