Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:AN)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:AN

Community portal
Help deskVillage pump
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections

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 instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email

[new report]
User problems
[new report]
Blocks and protections
[new report]
[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.

13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
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
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
Commons discussion pages (index)


  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • If appropriate, 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.

Bad Flickr account 2[edit]

Please add 48973657@N00 to Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users.

While it has a CC-BY-SA license, the description says (not just for this photo):

"You may syndicate this content for non-commercial purposes as long as you attribute credits to me. Commercial usage will be considered on a case-by-case basis."

So it's actually more like CC-BY-SA-NC. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:"48973657@N00". - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Not a good idea. The DR is leaning towards keep and there are lots of people who disagree with you on this matter (dual licensing etc.). So let's wait until the DR is officially closed. De728631 (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@De728631: is okay for me. Do note the photographer also responded in the DR and said "These are my photos. I have licensed them with CC-BY-SA for non-commercial use". - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that, but it has also been noted that the way he did it may have been ineffective in legal terms. Flickr does have dedicated NC and ND Creative Commons licenses to choose from, e.g. [1], [2]. De728631 (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@De728631: (please ping me, I don't read all the boards all the time) even if it is legally ineffective, we may want to avoid importing any more from now on. But waiting for the outcome of the DR works for me. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


Just FYI: It looks like today united spamming forces do run an attack against us, I just performed about 80 blocks. Please keep your heads up, I'll be offline now until tomorrow in the evening. Cheers, --Achim (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

uploads from really o.k.?[edit]

When I patroled new upload File:Adorable-baby-bed-1296148.jpg and checked the source page, I found that the license explaination of states in its section "What is not allowed?"

  • Don't redistribute or sell the photos on other stock photo or wallpaper platforms.
  • Don't sell unaltered copies of a photo, e.g. don't sell it as a stock photo, poster, print or on a physical product without adding any value.
  1. Commons is actually a stock photo platform. So, upload to Commons seems to be forbidden (per Pexels opinion).
  2. This point contradicts the statement "All photos on Pexels can be used for free for commercial and noncommercial use." in pexels "What is allowed?" section. Can their images still be considered free for commercial use?

Opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion this means, that Pexels images cannot be sold when unaltered, but can be sold after modifying, and that modifying is allowed. This is not enough free license. Commons images must be usable for commercial purposes even if not modified. Taivo (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Túrelio: Background: Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/ I don't know if the license was changed multiple times, but I agree that the current license is non-free for the two reasons you point out, and {{Pexels-CFU}} is not an accurate reflection of the actual terms. LX (talk, contribs) 19:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Pinging De728631. --Achim (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Achim. This new Pexels licence is annoying. Now that Túrelio mentioned these restrictions, I agree that {{Pexels-CFU}} is actually invalid. Images once uploaded at Pexels under CC-0 should not be affected, but I think we can no longer upload files from Pexels to Commons under the new proprietary licence. I have now opened Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pexels CFU for the few files that were uploaded under the Pexels-CFU template. De728631 (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@De728631: You missed a bunch. I'm trying to hunt them down. Should we determine the photo number that was used in July and allow photos with a lower number? Pexels doesn't seem to show when an image was published. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@De728631: File:Dream-filter-infrared-surreal-SH.jpg though you didn't upload this one, you did upload several images from other sources like Pixabay through This image shows you exactly why you can't trust this. Pexels links to and the license there is not compatible with Commons. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Another case: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coffee-cup-apple-iphone.jpg, Pexels links to [3] (dead) archived and these terms are not a free license. License laundering by Pexels. Kaboompics turns out to have an account on pexels, it's not import, though it looked like that. Now I don't know about SplitShire either. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Alright, thank you. I didn't look for the date of upload but only for files using the CFU template. I'm not sure about these photo numbers though, they seem too small to me to be related to the total number of uploads in a temporal sense. De728631 (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Detetion Request[edit]

Since we can't translate pages into Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese, please delete the following pages as I can't edit the page directly:

If there still remain some other pages please delete them too. Thanks. --GY Fan 14:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@: Why can't you? What message(s) do you get when you try? I see "Translation to Simplified Chinese is disabled: Translate in zh please." and "Translation to Traditional Chinese is disabled: Translate in zh please." Why is that?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't know, seems the sysop or translation administrator prohibited us from translating pages into zh-hans or zh-hant. --GY Fan 14:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Translate extension provides a function to convert automatically between Simplified and Traditional script. You may find the conversion button next to the talk page button. – Kwj2772 (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I know, but my request is delete the pages that needs no more. We can't translate into Simplified and Traditional Chinese so the outdated content remains outdated, and the language bar will show two deprecated languages. --GY Fan 08:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done Deleted. – Kwj2772 (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
The first two say 0% translated but the two help ones say 92% and 79% completed. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

SignBot is bugged worse than on enwiki[edit]

I have griefance with User:SignBot's false positives. See page history of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Genova-panorama dal santuario di ns incoronata3.jpg. User:Zhuyifei1999 (the bot operator) also has their talk page set to semi-protected, so it's difficult to reach out.

I expect nothing to come out of mentioning this at COM:AN, but at least that's what the standard bot notice says to do. Wrong place, wrong time. 01:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Also, it doesn't add subst {{Please sign}} as it's supposed to do. I've reverted it five times in the past 24 hours, three times yesterday (Tuesday, UTC). 01:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) I have given User:Zhuyifei1999 notice on their talk page of this AN post. Bidgee (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I suppose you have been asked many times why you won't register an account.. But I can't really search for that, because, you know.. you don't have an account. The edits you make are very uncommon for unregistered or new users. SignBot could be adjusted to detect some of this, but the adjustment would likely be made just for you. I won't blame Zhuyifei1999 if they would simply tell you to register an account and opt out of signbot. Or put !nosign! in the edit summary. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Being able to edit without an account has been a fundamental tenet across Wikimedia wikis from the beginning, and is only restricted where absolutely necessary. Storkk (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • What is a comment and what is not a comment? It's difficult to say yes and no automatically. But if you like a fix please suggest what patterns should be added 'this is not a comment' list. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: .*<\/noinclude>$
.*\[\[Category:[^\]]*\]\]$ (I think..)
Any comment that inserts {{Reflist-talk}}. Anyone who knows what that's for knows how to sign. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, you can edit it User:SignBot/exclude regex :P --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

WLM test uploads[edit]

I'm doing a few test uploads in preparation for the WLM contest starting in September. I'll post here to ask for the test images to be deleted, unless there's any more efficient method. They be speedy deleted, not renamed, as they will all be duplicates of existing files. The first one to be deleted is File:Northern Ireland - College Of Technology College Square East Belfast Bt1 6dj - .jpg. Thanks for the help, MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Updating abuse filters[edit]


The name of the global group "OTRS-member" has been changed to "otrs-member". As a result, some of the abuse filters used on this wiki may not work properly. Can one of the administrators please use search for all filters containing the phrase "OTRS" and make the necessary corrections? If you need to know more details please see or send me a direct email using Special:EmailUser/Huji.

Thanks! Huji (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Two affected filters: Special:AbuseFilter/history/69/diff/prev/1946, Special:AbuseFilter/history/164/diff/prev/1947, the other mateches in the search are just regex patterns. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: can you also take a look at User talk:Guanaco#Abuse filter? I think Guanaco is busy or something atm. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done should work I think --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: well, in part. Do you mind me saying that hiding Special:AbuseFilter/70 from public view is just stupid? I figured out how to evade it in 30 seconds, should we wait to see how long it will take an abuser? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Edit filters may be a bit more complex than you think ;) Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Possibly, but are you saying you were notified of that edit? (if you somehow were, I have more ideas to evade the filter) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
That method most likely won't work for newbie abusers. Feel free to try it out. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: passed. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
and passed - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I said that specific method, not 'tons of new methods'. And no, I don't see how making it public helps making bypassing more difficult. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
It would make it easier for others to spot the flaws. I got two more methods. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
So how do you propose to fix the filter? Just having a bypass doesn't help anything --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
You are asking me to propose a patch for a thing I'm not allowed to see. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, I am mildly offended that you call proof of concepts (that have also already been reversed) on files in Category:Test images a "disruption of Commons". I didn't test every method on my own test file because I'm not sure if the filter somehow ignores forged license review if the file at some point had a (seemingly) valid license review. I also don't know if it cares whether I'm forging a license for my own files or someone else's. I suspect it doesn't work that way, but I can't be sure, so I tested on other files as well. Or I would have had to upload more crap, which would have been just as disruptive if not more. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I can say it's using regex. You cannot prevent all sorts of bypasses with regex (so forget about it), so I'm not asking you to propose a patch but make a entire new method to replace regex. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Btw, you say you have two more methods? Can I say just by knowing it uses regex I have nearly infinite more methods? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: Thanks. I believe filter #65 (which is a deleted filter) also needs updating, just in case someone undeletes it and expects it to work off the cuff. Huji (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Possible problems with User:FlickreviewR 2 bot?[edit]

I'm not sure if this is a bot problem or not, but User:FlickreviewR 2 has been flagging images that are clearly in the public domain (photos taken by an agency of the U.S. federal government and are housed in the U.S. National Archives) which have been clearly identified as such in the Source and Author fields. (I had this happen a few days ago with a photo taken at the Mauthausen concentration camp by a member of the U.S. Army Signal Corps. User:FlickreviewR 2 tagged it with the message "This image was originally posted to Flickr by _______. It has been reviewed on ________ by FlickreviewR 2, which could not determine what the Flickr source image was." I don't have the exact wording of that Flickr tag because the image, was a U.S. NARA image, and had nothing to do with Flickr; that image was then deleted roughly two days later - mistakenly according to the Commons user who performed the deletion and has agreed to support a request for reposting if I choose to make that request.)

The same thing has now happened a second time. User:FlickreviewR 2 just flagged an image I posted earlier today - File:Capt. Eugene W. Ferris, 30th Massachusetts Infantry, c. 1865.jpg with the message "This image was originally posted to Flickr by at It has been reviewed on 2018-08-17 09:26:59 by FlickreviewR 2, which could not determine what the Flickr source image was." Again, this is a NARA image. When I uploaded it, I provided the following Source information: NARA M1064 (Record Group 94): Letters and their enclosures received by the Commission Branch of the Adjutant General's Office, 1863-70. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Archives and Records Adminstration (access provided via The Wikipedia Library and Fold3), retrieved online August 17, 2018."

This image is clearly in the public domain because: a.) the carte de visite was taken in 1865 (Capt. Ferris was a U.S. Medal of Honor winner, is identified in other U.S. military records as having been commissioned as a captain in 1865, and is shown in this photo in his captain's uniform); b.) the image was included in public domain records that were originally produced by the U.S. Office of the Adjutant General, which are now housed at the U.S. National Archives; and c.) the re-use of this photo has been made possible through the Wikimedia Library's partnership with Fold3.

I've uploaded a number of photos before this, and never had a problem until recently. Not being familiar with how this particular bot operates, I'm reporting the issues here per the instructions on User:FlickreviewR 2, "Non-administrators can report misbehaving bots to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard" in case there is a problem with this bot (which there seems to be because it doesn't seem to be able to differentiate between what is and is not a public domain image). I'm also placing a courtesy ping here to the bot's creator, @Zhuyifei1999:. Thank you in advance for taking a look. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

You didn't put a link to the source --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@47thPennVols: File:Capt. Eugene W. Ferris, 30th Massachusetts Infantry, c. 1865.jpg has not been deleted. Why did you think tagging it "{{flickrreview}}{{PD-USGov}}{{PD-USGov}}" was a good idea, if it didn't come from Flickr? What was the first filename, File:Prisoners' Corpses Beside Cart and Barracks, Mauthausen Concentration Camp, May 8, 1945.jpg? That was deleted for not citing a source and still having {{No source since}} after a week.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Jeff G.: Hi, Jeff. Was this reply directed at me or to @Zhuyifei1999:? (I was the one who posted the images, and am trying to figure out why they were tagged with Flickr tags as not being properly sourced when they were - as NARA images. The public domain licensing message was clearly visible on the page for the Mauthausen image before it was deleted, and is still clearly visible on the Ferris image, yet this Flickr bot labeled both as unsourced - and attached a hidden tag labeling both as unsourced.) This bot seems to be causing unnecessary confusion. 47thPennVols (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@47thPennVols: It was directed at you by indentation and ping. What does either image have to do with Flickr? Why "{{flickrreview}}" in the first place?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Hi, Jeff. Thanks for the clarification. I've also been trying to ask, "What does either image have to do with Flickr"? Both of these images are public domain images found in the collections of the U.S. National Archives, and have nothing to do with Flickr, but for some reason they were tagged by that Flickr bot, which makes no sense. This tagging has already caused serious problems because the first of the two images was deleted (mistakenly, according to the Commons editor who admitted that he shouldn't have removed the image). I've never had problems with NARA images being tagged this way. (This has only started happening recently.) So, what I'm trying to figure out is if something is wrong with this Flickr bot - which appears to the case. (This could be a huge problem for Commons because there are numerous public domain images from NARA on Commons which have nothing to do with Flickr.) P.S. I'm not the one who tagged the images with the flickreview tag; it was the bot created by @Zhuyifei1999:. 47thPennVols (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Read the diff again before claiming you're "not the one who tagged the images with the flickreview tag" --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I would also appreciate if you could stop pinging me. This page is on my watchlist and there is no need to ping me on every single edit. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: and Zhuyifei1999 I'm honestly not trying to be difficult here. And, Zhuyifei1999, my apologies for pinging you. (I'm still trying to figure out all of the various workings of Commons - like when to use ping vs. the "re|" function.) The reason that I've reached out to you, Zhuyifei1999, is that the User:FlickreviewR 2 bot page which appears to be causing a problem states that you are the operator of that bot. After reading your response above, I'm even more confused because you seem to be indicating that I was the one who tagged the images that I posted with the flickreview tag, but I did not physically attach that flickr tag myself. So, how is this tag being attached and why? Thank you for helping to clear up the confusion. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
{{re}} does a ping. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
P.S. (adding a clarification here): I uploaded both of these photos using the Commons Upload Wizard, following the designated steps throughout the process. At no point, did the word Flickr appear in anything I was being asked to describe or click on. So, I can't figure out how I could possibly be tagging this image myself. Could there be a problem with the upload wizard if it's not the bot? 47thPennVols (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@47thPennVols: It seems you were not understanding me, so let me be more clear. 09:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC) you used UploadWizard to upload File:Capt. Eugene W. Ferris, 30th Massachusetts Infantry, c. 1865.jpg in this edit. Part of that upload included "{{flickrreview}}" in the wikitext. How do you think your interaction with UploadWizard caused that inclusion? Can you retrace the decisions you made in that interaction?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Hi, Jeff. Thanks so much for trying to help, and for figuring out that "flickrreview" was somehow added to the wikitext. I have no idea how that text got in there. (I didn't add it.) When I uploaded the photo using the upload wizard, I just followed the step by step instructions. (Starting from the Wikipedia Commons main page, I: a.) clicked the "Upload photo" button, which took me to the upload wizard; b.) clicked on "Next" on the upload wizard page; c.) clicked "Select Media Files to Share", and uploaded the photo; d.) typed in the source and author information (for the Ferris image,I wrote: "NARA M1064 (Record Group 94): Letters and their enclosures received by the Commission Branch of the Adjutant General's Office, 1863-70. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Archives and Records Adminstration (access provided via The Wikipedia Library and Fold3), retrieved online August 17, 2018."; e.) added the description info, date, etc. on the photo's title and description page; f.) selected the U.S. government/public domain option on the licensing page; and g.) hit upload. Any ideas on what could be causing the "flickrreview" text to be added, and why? 47thPennVols (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
When you chose the license in "Release rights" page, did you choose any of the suboptions of "The copyright holder published their photo or video on Flickr with the right license". If not, which one did you choose? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Seeking input about regex for spam blacklist[edit]

At meta m:Talk:Spam blacklist#seeking input on two regex I am seeking input on the potential for, and consequences of, a blacklisting of two url strings


I would appreciate feedback from Commons on the pros and cons of that blacklisting. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage map[edit]

Participants make unconfirmed edits and refuse to discuss them:

--Терпр (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

That's rich, considering that you refuse to present your evidence. Why don't you try discussing the issues when people ask you to -- that might be more productive than sulking. Kwamikagami (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@Терпр, Kwamikagami, Jedi Friend, Baronedimare: I have protected the pages in question for one day and restored the status quo from before the edit war. Discuss the changes on the file talk pages and reach a consensus. Continuing the edit war after the protection is over will not be tolerated. Report it here if necessary, but stop reverting or re-uploading contested versions. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

MP4 -- since when did we allow it[edit]

Special:Upload clearly says it's allowed, and there are 55 cases already. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

In addition, it seems there is a thumbnail issue with MP4 files. Now I wonder what should I do with my videos... Yann (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Open a bottle of sake and celebrate? But no, really. Wasn't there a consensus against allowing .mp4? If so, maybe we could use a temp filter to prevent new uploads untill this is all sorted out. Natuur12 (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes there was. Commons:Requests for comment/MP4 Video closed that way back in 2014. It seems like this is a recent change too since the timestamps on the uploads say that this started July 31, 2018. --Majora (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Created Special:Abusefilter/209 as now copyrighted music files are being uploaded. MIME file types from existing files. — regards, Revi 06:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Enwiki also allows mp4 now: w:File:Yermi.mp4. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Cool, Mythbusters in Russian. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
What are we going to do with the current mp4 files already uploaded? — regards, Revi 06:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
IIRC, the MP4 patent expired recently, and there was a discussion about allowing MP4, but I can't remember a final decision. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
MP4 is many things. First and foremost, "MP4" is just a container. Probably no serious issues. What is usually in it, H.264/MPEG-4 AVC and Advanced Audio Coding is another story, but it can also contain High Efficiency Video Coding.
Yann, I think what you mean is MP3 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I probably confuse MPEG2, MPEG-4 Part 2 with MP4. Yann (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@-revi: We actually have a speedy criterion for this. CSD F7. MP4 is a disallowed format. Bug aside that temporarily allowed them there is grounds for just speedy deleting them all under that. --Majora (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Well yeah I know we can just delete and force users to reupload in a valid format (like {{own}} ones), but just wanted to make sure others thinks same. — regards, Revi 16:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Either that or DR the bunch with a note that, provided it is copyright compliant, these can be reuploaded under an approved format. Sorry for the inconvenience. Seeing as MP4 does not comply with the free standards that we expect I personally wouldn't have a problem with just speedying the lot and leaving a note on the uploader's talk page explaining the problem. --Majora (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Can't we reupload them all with V2C (providing there is no other issue, i.e. I nominated a few files for deletion)? That would save people reuploading the whole files. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. Probably should still notify people why their files are being removed/overwritten though. Any of the ways so far seem fine to me. Speedy with talk page note, mass DR, or just do it for them. I like the mass DR approach since VFC can do all the notifying for you and then the uploaders have a choice on how to proceed. It would probably filter out a lot of copyvios for us too since only the actual {{own}} works would bother. --Majora (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment maybe we should actually consider leaving things the way they are! (I know, silly..) The abuse filter is like flypaper for copyvios:
Very effective! Face-surprise.svg - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Rhapsody (ship, 1996), Sète cf01.jpg[edit]

Hello, can an administrator add this description in this protected file please:

{{fr|1=Le ''[[:fr:Rhapsody (cruise-ferry)|Rhapsody]]'' (anciennement ''Napoléon Bonaparte''), amarré dans le port de [[:fr:Sète|Sète]], France.}}

Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done De728631 (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
thanks you, Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: I never noticed that you resigned as an admin. So let me take this opportunity to thank you for your good work and hopefully some day you will re-apply for adminship! Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I second this, and I, too, would welcome you back in office. Actually I was wondering why Christian didn't edit the page himself... De728631 (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Thirded.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks you for your kind words. :). Yes, I wanted to focus on other things. I was happy and proud to be part of the team, and there is a very high probability that I will be a candidate again in a more or less distant future. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)