User talk:Green Giant/Archive 4

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

Sports in Yorkshire

Since you appear to come from Bradford you ought to be skilled about the facts of former Yorkshire. The category: Sports in Yorkshire was some kind of a mess, so I thought it would be better for it to be a disambiguation. Do you think it's appropriate? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Blackcat, I think that is a definite improvement because Yorkshire has traditionally been divided into smaller counties for a long time now. Thank you for doing that. Green Giant (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. What shall I do with this, instead? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat)
I think we should wait a few days for Editor5807 to respond. If there is no objection or no response I think it would be safe to move back. Green Giant (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 20:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


Hello, My account has been compromised during my absence. Can you block it indefinitely to avoid damage to Wikimedia projects? Global block if possible. --BScMScMD (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete of terminated Youtube account media

Hi, it was deleted this files: File:Крым колонна Российских тигров.webm, File:МИТИНГ ТАТАР В КРЫМУ! Евромайдан.WebM. I never upload files without permission, so im persuaded, that this files are OK. So its needed to delete all files when is account of author terminated, or is some way to save this files there? Becouse all of account will be terminated and i mean that is nonsense to delete all their files. So what is way to save this files in future? --Palu (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Palu, the problem is that the files failed a license review because the source file at YouTube no longer exists. Unfortunately it appears that it is Youtube policy to delete files when an account is closed down, which is not something that would happen automatically on Commons. The best way to avoid this is to request a license review as soon as you upload the file. If you find that it is taking a long time, feel free to ask me and if I will do the review as soon as possible. Green Giant (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Vice Admiral Sir David George Steel KBE DL.tif

Hello, I have question about this deletion. I'm not person who uploaded this file. AlexRoyalNavy uploaded this file. I found that AlexRoyalNavy posted a message in Talk page of Second Sea Lord, he said the image is cleared to use under the OGL License. I read the reason of deletion is that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. AlexRoyalNavy did not tag it with OGL License. My question is can we restore(undelete) this file and tag it with OGL License? Cheers, Ikatemag (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Ikatemag, the file simply said "Crown copyright (UK government)" under the licensing section, and gave "UK government" as source with "Crown copyright" as author. This is all insufficient information as required by Commons licensing policy, i.e. clear license, source and author. It is not enough for the uploader to say it is OGL on a Wikipedia talk page. S/he should follow one of two routes: online evidence or email OTRS. If the photo was published elsewhere, they can provide the URL as a source but it has to be a page which clearly shows that the image is under the OGL. If not, then they should ask the copyright holder to provide a license statement by email to from an official email address i.e. not a Hotmail or Gmail address. Once that has been done, let me know and I will check the email and if it is OK, I will restore the file. Green Giant (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


Hi GG. When you get a chance, can you delete User:INeverCry/Stats, switch User:INeverCry/Barnstars to semi-protection, and restore the last revision of User:INeverCry/Stuff and semi-protect the page? INeverCry 00:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

INeverCry, ✓ Done. Let me know if there is anything else you need. :) Green Giant (talk) 08:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I appreciate it. Especially the protections. People always talk about blocks and deletions, but protection can be just as powerful. Blocks don't help much with Wikinger for example, so I always used protections and revision cleans/deletions, and it slowed him down to a crawl. He's one of the guys who the two protections you just did for my pages are meant to stop.

I noticed your non-free image idea btw. I used to upload fair-use images to, and then upload some of the same images to Two issues I see are the language barrier, which I think would be tough, especially with Russian, Chinese, Korean, Arabic, Farsi, Japanese, Hindi, etc, and the fact that allows FoP violation images of sculptures, statues, and monuments to be uploaded locally. We're talking 1000+ images, 100s of which have already been deleted from Commons. And that's just the Ukrainian wiki - who knows what other local image polices other wikis have that aren't exactly non-free (I think the policy prohibits commercial usage)? Interesting idea though.

I just noticed the block/nuke mentioned at my talk. Thanks for that too. INeverCry 08:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


Hiya GG!! Thanks for restoring INC, and could you take a look at [1], I'd love to close that whole page, but all the remaining nominations are mine!! Poor form and what all. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Ellin Beltz I've closed all of those nominations, which incidentally I agreed with. The only poor form was that you forgot to sign some of your comments, so I "unsigned" them before closing them. By the way I didn't restore INC because INC is not a file or a page - he is a real person (I hope) :P Green Giant (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
OH crud, I wasn't aware I forgot to sign some!! Sorry! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

More help

This sure is the day I seem to need a hand on everything! Perhaps it's nearly full moon? Anyway, we have a really good photographer here on Commons WPPilot. I ran into him because people were nominating his images for deletion basically because they were 'too good' so they 'had to be swiped'. Now there's some kind of kerfuffle with his WP account; which of course means nothing on Commons other than it seems it might be spilling over here with people renaming his images - which he feels violates his license. It's a tangled bowl of spaghetti and I'd like a second opinion, please? His message is on bottom of my talk page. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

In regard to the naming convention, I have over the years found that most the time, while we place the critical request for attribution on each image, that does not always happen. As a matter of fact, most the time the re-user in the public provides attribution to Wikipedia, (Facebook for example) or Wikipedia Commons but in using my photographic attribution name in the file name that forces them to provide that attribution by default most the time. I have software that tracks the unique image ID on my photos and have been able to correct a number of publications over the years but with regard to the image from Hawaii I am glad someone corrected the name of the location to its local proper name, but I would simply like to have my name restored to this end of this revised name, and this should be normal practice in the future on issues like this.
Can you speedy the other two images I just tagged. - thank you... --WPPilot (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done WPPilot, I have deleted those two files and also renamed that other file so it now has your name. If there any other files that have been renamed without your name, let me know and I'll see what I can do. I agree that re-users often don't give credit in the correct way but I've also seen numerous people requesting permission to use Commons files by posting a request on the OTRS noticeboard, simply because there is an OTRS template on the file. Somehow they miss the license and pay attention only to the OTRS box! I'd highly recommend putting your name into the EXIF - something like 'copyright holder | D Ramey Logan'. It could be easily removed by a re-user but it's one extra way of marking the files. Don't be tempted by watermarks though because Commons discourages that and I think it's nicer to not have them anyway. Green Giant (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Great, thank you. I too try to avoid watermarks hence my manner of file attribution as mentioned about. Thank you for your help. Cheers!--WPPilot (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)



We are a registered alumni of a Chinese high school in France. We are a part of our school, and writing a wiki page in French to present the school.

As far as this photo is concerned, it was shot by some photographers for the school, we have the entire right to use them.

Is the information/copyright category OK now for this photo?

Thanks and regards

Neyc.alumni.france — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neyc.alumni.france (talk • contribs) 02:19, 10 May 2015‎ (UTC)

The photographer is the copyright holder unless they confirm that they have transferred copyright to someone else. We don't need to see the transfer document but we do need contact from the copyright holder. For hosting on Wikimedia Commons, it is not enough that you have the right to use them. What we require is that the copyright holder releases the image(s) under a free license (click the link for more information). This can be done by following the OTRS procedure - ask the copyright holder to send a license statement to, using the sample statement found at COM:ET. Once that license is confirmed by an OTRS volunteer, the file can betagged appropriately or restored (if it has been deleted). Hope that clarifies things. Feel free to ask for more help if you need it. Green Giant (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Featured Photos

Hello Green Giant, & @Ellin Beltz:. I was wondering if you (two) might help me nominate some of my photos in the featured photos section. While I have many that have made featured status on EN, the interface is quite different here and it would be great to get some assistance to get started. I thought I would start with these: User_talk:WPPilot#Featured_Photos as each was chosen in the NE site as qualifying. The commons interface is unfamiliar to me for FP's.

Thank you!!! --WPPilot (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

WPPilot, to be honest I've never actually nominated any pics, because until January last year I was more of a Wikipedian than a Commonist. You can judge my meagre photo skills by the paltry display on my user page! However, if I had to pick one that stands out, I'd say File:25 P 51XR Mustang N6WJ Precious Metal Reno Air Race 2014 photo D Ramey Logan.jpg - license is free, resolution is 2+Mpx, pretty good technical quality considering it is moving and is at some distance. I also highly value the opinions of those Lords of Geekdom, Adam and Crisco, who supported the WP nomination. The photo also passes my benchmark test - tilt my screen back to see if there are burns in the photo (I think you'll agree that is a highly technical and skilled method of appraisal). Most importantly "it's a purrty color" as a slack-jawed hillbilly might opine! Green Giant (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
<grin> Ok I will start with that pic. I did run across a few photos that I would like to have you update the name upon. File:Fujimi-yagura 1.jpg, File:Hasuikebori_lotus_moat_edo.jpg & File:Imperial_Palace_Tokyo_Kyuden_2.jpg are my work and it would be great to follow the same naming convention. I will try to see if I can get that file nominated today. :) Thanks. --WPPilot (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/candidate_list#Featured_picture_candidates I see what I was doing now, no brainer. Feel free to vote ;) - Cheers! --WPPilot (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
For your immense help in uploading this file as an OTRS volunteer, as a guide in uploading a file from websites like Behindwoods etc. and all above, as a great friend with a good dose of patience to bear me. Thank you and hope your help me again somewhere in the near future. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I've copied a truncated version to my userpage. Green Giant (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


Hi. I'm Pavanjandhyala and after few volunteers giving a deaf ear to my request at the OTRS noticeboard, i'm approaching you when INeverCry expressed inability to solve my problem. Did anyone from sent a mail to OTRS permitting the usage of this content here? If yes, can you please let me know its OTRS ticket number if any? I requested them permission on 23 March 2015 after watching this file. Or else, if you are an OTRS volunteer, can you tell me whether that ticket is valid only for that particular file or any similar content available in their website? Please do respond. Thank you, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Pavanjandhyala, I have searched OTRS for "behind woods", "behindwoods", "", "vaishali" and "vaishalli" but there does not appear to be an email about that image. The ticket for the other file (Nazriya Nazim image) appears to be solely for that image and not a general license. I think your best course of action would be to get in touch with them again. As for the lack of response at the OTRS noticeboard, it isn't a case of deaf ears. We simply don't have enough volunteers to handle the thousands of emails that arrive every month. As an example, there are currently 987 unread emails (which may include junk emails) but only 18 volunteers are online. I am also a Commons admin so I try to help with deleting the approximately 1500 copyright violations uploaded each week. This is on top of my real life where I have a family and a day job, which takes up 90% of my time! Please don't be upset about a lack of response from other editors - patience is advised, together with a healthy dose of persistence. Anyway, go email them again and this time don't wait a month for a reply. Green Giant (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
My intention was not to demean anybody. Sorry if i have hurt you. I've already mailed them on 30 April. And there has been no response till now. Advice me how to proceed now. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I would recommend that you send them another email and politely remind them about your previous email. Green Giant (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
That was what i did on 30 April. Here is the copy of the content in the mail which i sent to them :

To, The concerned (because i don't know whom to write)

Hi. My name is Pavan Jandhyala and i am a Wikipedian.

On 22 March 2015, i sent an email to this email id available at your website foir requesting your permission to use a file available in your website. And, in case you missed it, here is the content of that mail :

To the team of,

I am writing to you on behalf of the Wikipedia project <>, an endeavour to build a fully-fledged multilingual encyclopaedia in an entirely open manner, to ask for permission to use your copyrighted material.

Your organisation has on its website content which would undoubtedly enhance communication with our target audience; in order to do so, I should like to ask for your authorisation to use such content, namely the photograph located at -, under the terms of Wikipedia's licence.

Wikipedia licenses all its content under the licence developed for purposes of free documentation by the Creative Commons, the text of which can be found at <>. It should be borne in mind that if you choose to allow Wikipedia to use the stated [photograph, illustration, etc], it will remain copyrighted to you; however, the said licence stipulates that third parties must be permitted to reuse the licensed work so long that they retain the licence of this work and any derivatives from it. Consequently, you may wish to consider carefully whether you are prepared to compromise some of your rights granted to you by copyright law by licensing your work as suggested.

That said, allow me to reiterate that your material will be used to the noble end of providing a free collection of knowledge for everyone; naturally enough, only if you agree. If that is the case, please copy the form at <> into the e-mail by which you grant us permission to use your content, and make any necessary amendments before sending the e-mail to our email response team ("OTRS") at

We shall greatly appreciate it.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours Faithfully, Pavan Jandhyala

It has been almost five weeks and if you have given your consent back then, i should have get the OTRS ticket number by now. All i want to know is an answer to three questions. Firstly, are you willing to permit me using that file on Wikipedia. And, if you indeed receive the mail that day and read it, did you sent an email to OTRS by following the instructions in that mail? If yes, when did you send the mail.

Anyone concerned from the team of who read this mail can please do a small favour. Please let me know the answers of these three questions by sending an email to this id!

With a ray of hope that anyone from the concerned may reply to me as soon as possible, Yours sincerely, Pavan Jandhyala.

Now, what should i do Green Giant? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

...wait...wait...aaand...wait. That's all you can do :) I'm sure they will get back to you but if there is no reply in about two weeks, send another email...and wait some more... Green Giant (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay. What should i do when they send an email confirming that they have sent a mail to OTRS? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
At that point you can upload the file with the usual {{Information}} template and in the "permissions" line add the license behindwoods have issued together with an {{OTRS pending}} template. Then it is a matter of waiting for an OTRS person to get to the email, which might be a couple of months. However if you let me know, I will try to speed things up. Green Giant (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Alright. Thanks for your help in this issue. I shall wait for their reply. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Yesterday i requested permission for using this content on Wikimedia in the format i sent for Behindwoods (starting from... To the team of, I am writing to you on behalf of the Wikipedia project <>, an endeavour to build.... to... Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your reply. Yours Faithfully, Pavan Jandhyala." Then i got a mail from the concerned saying "ok sure". Can you please try to find out whether someone from sent a mail to permitting the use of this image ? If yes, what should be my next step? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Pavanjandhyala - no email received from either website yet. 07:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Since idlebrain expressed its content, can i upload the file with an OTRS pending tag after a week or two? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually you can upload it straight away as long as the copyright holder has told you that they have sent it. I would recommend forwarding your email conversation to the same OTRS email address, whilst mentioning that you are waiting for them to send the license. Green Giant (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
It may be too much if i ask this, but i am unable to know what to write after thinking for long. Can you compose a paragraph for the same to be added just before the lines : Forwarded message

From: venkat jeevi <> Date: Mon, May 4, 2015 at 11:06 PM............. It is a humble request please. You give me the template text and i shall do it. However replying or not is at your discretion.

I've sent the mail as you directed. Here is the file i have uploaded. Please make changes if necessary and suggest me what to do next. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Pavanjandhyala, I've checked the email system just now and still there is no email from either one. However, we have received your email (ticket:2015050610005787) and an automatic reply was sent to you. Don't get too attached to the ticket number because it will probably get merged with the license email when it gets here. So just more patience needed, but I'll keep checking every one or two days. The uploaded file looks fine so I've not changed anything. By the way, is that the largest version of the file? Green Giant (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Sadly, yes. It was cropped for better visibility. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Behindwoods has sent the permission to permissions-en yesterday. Can you please check its OTRS ticket number? And, can i upload the file now with an OTRS pending tag? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Pavan, I've checked the email and the ticket number is 2015051010011128. Feel free to upload the file and add OTRS pending. Let me know when it is uploaded and I will change the tag to OTRS confirmed with the ticket number. Green Giant (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is the file. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 05:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@Pavanjandhyala: ✓ Done - I've replied to the Behindwoods email together with a carbon copy to you; additionally I've modified the file summary because they licensed it under GFDL as well. I have also put the licenses furtehr up because I think it is easier for other users if they see the license(s) above the OTRS note. I can't tell you how many times people have seen the OTRS note first and gone to the OTRS noticeboard to ask for permission to re-use an image, even though the permission is on the file page somewhere! I've also used the {{URL}} template because it makes it look neater. Green Giant (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi. has refused to give further permission. And they are being too adamant on the same. Hence i request you to delete this. But, will it block me forever? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately this does happen, authors sometimes change their minds at the last minute. I've deleted the file and no you will not be blocked for something like this. You've followed the correct procedure and you've used talk pages to discuss the issue. No Wikimedia wiki will ever block you for any of that :) Green Giant (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


A Very Good Day to You !!

Could you Please change the Pic Year to 1925 from 1924,Thanks Face-smile.svg
Link to the Pic--MediaJet talk 07:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@MediaJet: ✓ Done. Green Giant (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Green Face-smile.svg--MediaJet talk 09:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Question in regard to deleted image

Hello, you deleted an image here. As i remember it shows the large canopy walkway in Bavarian Forest National Park (Germany) including some people (mainly showing their backs, so not really identifiable). Can you please look up if this is correct?

The image was uploaded for the current Wiki Loves Earth contest, and it was the first image by a new user. If it is the image i remember, it was also one of the few images which gives an impression of how large the walkway is/how it is used… (by humans being present in the image). This walkway is noted as the largest one worldwide at the moment by the way. So i don't think it was really "out of scope". Maybe you can restore it? Holger1959 (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done - Holger1959, I've restored the file per your points above. Green Giant (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thank you very much! Holger1959 (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Hunnan-1.jpg and File:Agro.jpg

Hello, the school has sent a copyright mail to permission wiki, could you please do the necessary and especially restore File:Hunnan-1.jpg and File:Agro.jpg? Thank you--Neyc.alumni.france (talk) 11:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Neyc.alumni.france, I've checked the email (ticket:2015052210004766) and it is in Chinese, which I have no proficiency in. I may have to ask for help from a Chinese-speaking volunteer. Using Google translate there appear to be a couple of problems with it. The license is not clear because the email says:

"我同意該作品以下列開放授權釋出:創用CC授權-相同方式分享 4.0國際通用版。"

Google translates that as saying:

"I agree that the work is open to the following authorized release: Creative CC license - Share 4.0 International generic version in the same way"

Could you confirm if that translation is correct or not? The problem is that there are several CC-licenses including CC-BY and CC-BY-SA, so the copyright holder has to choose which one to use although they can have more than one license if they wish. Secondly, the email is from a website which appears to be a free email service that anyone can create an account on. Maybe I've missed it, but there is no mention of this email address anywhere on the school website. What we need is an email from an address within the school website or is at least mentioned as an official email at the school website. Green Giant (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I don’t read Chinese, but here’s the notice text from the Traditional Chinese CC-BY-SA 4.0 licence:
本著作係採用創用 CC 姓名標示-相同方式分享 4.0 國際 授權條款授權.
(corresponding to the English “This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.”)—the middle part of which looks substantially the same to me. Of course the verifiability of the address is another issue, but I bet the above message does describe the right licence.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for this effort. First, as Odysseus1479, I could confirm that what has been written in the mail regarding the copyright is exactly the same as the notice text from the Traditional Chinese CC-BY-SA 4.0 licence, so please don't worry about it. Second, about the mail address, we are aware that it is from a free mail service. But that is unfortunately the reality, the school (regardless of its quality) does not have official emails. That's the case for this teacher, as well as other teachers. So every teacher uses a third part mail. That's why the teacher attached a proof of her identify w.r.t. the school to the mail. Thanks and regards--Neyc.alumni.france (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You've been nominated!

--> --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the nomination! Green Giant (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

You deleted File:ISN 00696 military commission -- Appointing Authority stays hearings until further notice--other commissions litigation can proceed.pdf citing the authority of Commons:Deletion requests/File:ISN 00696 military commission -- Appointing Authority stays hearings until further notice--other commissions litigation can proceed.pdf.

Nominator claimed it wasn't in use. I explicitly referenced it on Being in use made it in scope, didn't it? Geo Swan (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Geo Swan, ✓ Done I've restored the file, re-opened the DR, moved your question there and replied. Green Giant (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you please review a license?

Hi Green Giant,

First of all, thanks again for your reply on the OTRS Noticeboard, and also for the wise advice you gave me long ago when I had uploaded a picture of the Redhead Express, and the owner of the image was taking a long time to send in a declaration of consent.

I was wondering if you could please review the license for this image. The Source field that I provided is a Weebly website which I think they are getting rid of, and replacing it with something else. The image I uploaded to Commons is in the second row of that photo gallery, in the middle column (just to save you a couple of seconds). I would be very grateful if you could do me that favor. Thanks again for all your help! Dontreader (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Dontreader, in the time between you posting this request and me looking at the website, our newest admin, Thibaut120094, has reviewed it :) Green Giant (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
LOL, I write too slowly! I have a "relaxed brain"! Thanks anyway for checking! I'll also thank the other administrator for the super quick review. It's a big relief! I've been worried for weeks, thinking there was no solution. Have a great day! Dontreader (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. lol Thibaut120094 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ifyoustare.jpg.

Your decision to delete this - despite the opposition by other editors than myself to the original trivial proposer, has removed my image from the Wikimedia Foundation Board election candidate's page - I am a candidate. This creates a rather unfortunate situation, to say the least. The candidate statement page cannot be edited at this stage, and the voting closes on 31 May. Any ideas?--Smerus (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Smerus, I've restored the file and re-opened the DR because the text could be PD-ineligible. I can't guarantee that another admin won't delete it but I am guessing it will be open for a few days more. In return for restoring the file, if you are elected to a board seat, I look forward to receiving a bigger office to work from and a better dental plan :P Green Giant (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks for your prompt action. The office and the dental plan are fine, how about a few weeks researching beaches in the Bahamas as well? Best, --Smerus (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. The beach research sounds like a heavy burden but somebody's got to do it. Green Giant (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Green Giant, Sorry.?!

  1. IF you want delete my foto your need "read" - Discussion:

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Klausvienresh --Klausvienresh (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Klausvienresh, I assume you are referring to File:XRcuywzFiXc.jpg. It had nothing to do with the Deletion Request you mention. It was deleted because it showed only CD or DVD album covers which can only be published by either the musician or the publishing company they signed up to. Did you create the CD covers? Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Green Giant, Can you sum up this discussion, please ? --Klausvienresh (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I would do so but my understanding of the Russian language is mostly based on Google Translate. Green Giant (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

More admins


I have an idea. Why don't we both find a good candidate and we nominate them and ask other admins to do the same. :). Natuur12 (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Natuur12, I would be very happy to work with you on this. There are a few people that come to mind from regular names at DR's and copyvio taggers; in fact I recall that INC had a list of potential admins that I would agree with and I hope INC doesn't mind me paraphrasing. It included FDMS4, Leoboudv, Mjrmtg, P199, Wdwd, We hope and Ww2censor. However, top of my list would be Gunnex, who puts a heck of a lot of effort and detail into each DR and copyvio nomination. Thoughts? Green Giant (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I've asked Gunnex 3 times, and he's told me he has no interest. We hope is currently semi-retired. FDMS4 and P199 showed some interest, so perhaps another ask would be worth the time. I asked Leoboudv 2 times, but he didn't feel ready. I never got around to asking Mjrmtg, Wdwd, or Ww2censor. LX and Stefan4 have made it clear that they aren't interested either. Not easy to find good RFA candidates who're willing. I've only done noms for a dozen or so editors over the past few years. User:Ies was someone I was looking at too. INeverCry 01:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I think Stefan4 would be interested but he is concerned about the legal implications because he is from Sweden and apparently they have a strange law about people who maintain databases. Ies is definitely a name I see regularly in DRs, but I'll wait to hear Natuur's opinion. Green Giant (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, all those candidates sound good but I don't think FDMS4 is interested at this time, mayby later. I asked him already some time ago. Leoboudv is more than ready in my opinion. I asked Oyoyoy yesterday btw. It will be hard to find admins who spend hours closing complicated DR's but it should be possible to find plenty of admins that are willing to wield the tools so they can help out when they encounter something. Every bit helps. Emha and Mdann52 are also good candidates. They could surely use the tools for their OTRS-work and it would safe us the trouble of undeleting files when needed. Natuur12 (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
So shall we start with Leoboudv? Green Giant (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Good idea :). Natuur12 (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I've never nominated anyone, so do we approach Leoboudv first or write the nomination first? Green Giant (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I would suggest asking and getting a definite yes from any potential nominee before writing up an RFA, especially for people I've asked before like Leoboudv and FDMS4. I never wanted people to feel like I was pushing it on them. Gunnex ignored my email the 3rd or 4th time I asked him... Face-wink.svg INeverCry 10:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Natuur12 and INeverCry, I think I've got a yes from FDMS4. Green Giant (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
It looks like he's saying he would consider an RFA in a couple months. INeverCry 10:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

So, who's gonna ask Leoboudv? I'm happy to do so as long as we're agreed. Green Giant (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

He rejected the offer. :( Jianhui67 talkcontribs 06:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if its partially the chew-on-each-other situations that we find ourselves in - or dealing with the anger and frustration of people either gaming the system or truly clueless which keeps these good editors from wanting the mop?
I don't know what we can do to ask people to behave better with each other. I am amazed they don't consider their permanent record before starting stuff, but whatever, it's on their record.
I continue to wish we could rename DNs to "files for discussion" and polite up the templates to get people Less Annoyed at First Contact than they are now, perhaps that would reduce admin stress?
Perhaps better automated tools provided by the project would help, i.e. search systems which permit creation of things like OgreBot's less than 150 edits/uploads summary page. Perhaps even - do I dare dream ? - they'd pay to have an automated bot written which would compare the image being uploaded to Google images and Tineye during the upload process and send it to "Lane 1" with a link to the found image if a duplicate already existed on the internet? I mean really, why are we asking admins to do all this for free without some form of automated buffering?
Why not require first time uploaders (where most of the problems are) to take a little test about their understanding of copyright before allowing uploads? They do that in video games... no one can upload meshes without filling in forms and passing a short online test about DMCA rights. That way if one did subsequently rip off someone else's mesh, they'd have them by the short hairs as they tested that they understood DMCA and then violated it. For people who can't pass the simple copyright test, automatic week block and link to the tutorials. And then retest, etc. I am continually amazed by the claims of cluelessness of people who uploaded images; I see the upload forms all the time and they're pretty specific. Maybe a small test would help them focus.
In any case, I think it would be a good discussion item on one of the boards for "why would you // or why would you not // like to be an Admin on Commons". I think it would be interesting to read the responses. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
IMHO the WMF should build a filter for automatically detecting copyvios (this is possible using google api etc.) but they don't like for some reason (maybe because they working on VisualEditor, MediaViewer and other - for the wmf - high prio projects). A simple filter would be a easy solution. And we cannot scan filedescriptions when uploading with abusefilter, this has been reported years ago, but wmf don't like to fix it. Otrs prmissions can be faked because of that bug. There is a lot of work to do on the upload-mechanism to prevent copyvio uploads. We are wasting a lot of time because there is no upload filter for detecting clear copyvios. :-( --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
And since no one likes to have their time wasted, it's harder to attract new admins. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
On the bright side, sometimes good things do happen. All you can do is encourage people to stay calm and discuss things without resorting to The Dark Side. I think your idea of asking an open question would be very useful. Perhaps this matter could be turned around with a general invitation to anyone who thinks they might be a good admin to apply, i.e. in addition to us searching for potential admins. I've always wondered whether we could have a sort of Admin Academy, somewhat similar to the Wikipedia Counter Vandalism Academy, or would that make it too formal? Green Giant (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I just asked Wdwd. An admin academy would be great since there is so much to do when you are a brand new admin and there is so much to discover. Even after 1 year+ of adminship I keep finding new help pages ;). More automated tools would be helpfull and a simpel copyright test seems like a nice solution. Another threashold is people being just plain uncivil all the time. We often have the more-admins discussion at the Dutch Wikipedia and the same every time. People don't want be be some kind of boxing ball used by frustrated editors. Natuur12 (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Btw, perhaps there are good candidates listed at Special:ListUsers/Image-reviewer. Natuur12 (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Aye, I've just asked Jkadavoor and I'm looking at a couple more from that list. Green Giant (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Jee says not now, maybe in a years time. Green Giant (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
See here :). Natuur12 (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

in re Fastily

Re:Rollback error
hey, you did not revdiv it. i was inclined to be sympathetic, given the abrupt re-block, but when you pull your toys and stomp off, it's don't let the door hit you on the way out. see here's the rub with recruiting more admins: no one wants to participate in the toxic atmosphere. "decline will continue based on organizational culture, until an investment is made to shift the culture" so show me the specific plan to change the culture, not the efforts to bandage symptoms. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 01:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Bah Slowking4! I bet you were expecting me to block you as well for good measure :P The problem with changing the culture is that we have to acknowledge one important factor - people probably wouldn't bite and snap at each other in real life, although some folks are beyond redemption. It seems to me that aggressive behaviour has long been ingrained into Wikimedia culture almost since the beginning. I remember doing some vandalism as my first edit around 2003 and the angry response from one logged in user discouraged me from editing further. Certainly it stopped me from committing further vandalism but it also discouraged me from creating an account and contributing. There are probably many things we could do at Commons that might result in a less aggressive culture e.g. a more clearly defined set of behaviour policies similar to English Wikipedia, particularly the conduct ones. Other things that could be done include renaming "Deletion Requests" to "File Reviews" or a similar neutral wording. When uploaders (and especially new users) receive a notification about a DR, I think many of them see it as a threat, which brings out aggressive and defensive behaviour, which the wording of the page title undoubtedly contributes to.
Another thing that could be done is extending the length of a DR from a minimum of seven days to a minimum of fourteen days to provide more opportunity to discuss the possible deletion. Yet another thing that would help is if all deletion requests and copyvio notifications involved emails being sent automatically to uploaders, because a regular complaint by uploaders is that they never received an email about a DR whereas we use the relatively weak argument that a notice had been left on the user talk page and it is the uploaders own fault for not logging in regularly. Then of course there are many uploaders who are far more active on other projects and will be less likely to visit Commons. Now that we have unified accounts I would like to see a system whereby they receive a notice on their most active talk page in addition to their Commons talk page, although it may be that we will receive global notifications sometime soon. More ever I don't think it would hurt to have a bot that leaves a notice on the talk pages of articles that a DR-nominated file is being used on, so active users there have a chance to come and discuss possible deletion, and a 14-day minimum would help with that. Another source of anger for some is the "secerecy of OTRS" which could be and is being partially solved by a number of measures. One of the best changes recently is that some tickets (but not all yet) result in an automatic generic reply which reassures the sender and also gives them the ticket number. How many times I've seen messages on the OTRS noticeboard asking if someone's email has been received yet. A further improvement that I'm going to suggest soon is that uploaders should be able to add the ticket number to the {{OTRS pending}} template when they add it to their file. That would help OTRS volunteers in locating and processing the relevant ticket. Another thing I'd like to see is a public interface to the OTRS ticket system, so for example an uninvolved user could click on a ticket number and be taken to an information page rather than directly to the login screen. This information page would give details like the date the ticket was created, the queue it is in, any license(s) mentioned in the ticket (although not all tickets contain a license), and the copyright holder(s) name (if they choose to publicise it). This would obviously involve software changes and I'm not sure how popular it might be but I can imagine that at least uploaders would be reassured.
There is of course yet another way of reducing tension and that is by changing our approach to unfree files. I'm sure you are aware that I proposed a possible solution in which unfree files could be transferred to a second image repository, quite possibly with the help of a bot like User:Commons fair use upload bot, which seems unlikely to be launched soon. Now a non-free wiki would be one solution but another solution might be to incorporate such a repository into Commons itself. Instead of deleting a file that is in use elsewhere and which could qualify for fair use, we could just reduce the file down to an acceptable size and delete older versions - uploaders would be less upset by such an option. However this is unlikely to happen in Commons soon because we don't accept unfree files, and because we want re-users to be able to re-use files in any way they wish. Absurd as they might sound, let's say Commons does accept fair use files, I don't think Commons would be held responsible for someone else re-using such a file as long as we took reasonable steps like reducing the size that is publicly viewable and adding clear tags to indicate fair use status. Abd has suggested starting a discussion about this on Commons but I'm not sure that such a discussion won't become "toxic".
Finally to bring this back to a current issue, I think we have far fewer people with advanced permissions like bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, ordinary admins and license reviewers than comparable projects like EN-WP. Until yesterday, we had 18 people with B, CU or OS, although we now have 21. In comparison, EN-WP has 30+ bureaucrats, 40+ checkusers and 50+ oversighters. Obviously some will have more than one such permission and undoubtedly some will be inactive but it is still far more than Commons. The more of these that we have, the greater the transparency and less chance of being seen as a cabal. Anyway, that is some of my opinion on how to reduce tensions on Commons. Green Giant (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
i kinda agree, but rename DR, lol. the editor decline is accompanied by admin decline as well, burnout of gatekeeper culture. there is a nice way to enforce rules, and a nasty way; wikipedia always picks the nasty way. it doesn't have this way: wikihow has paid ambassadors who on board new editors. but patrolers can't be bothered: hit the semi-automatic buttons, target destroyed.
i really like the fair use wiki idea, but the reason why fair use bot won't work or uncommons, is because people don't want to do the hard work of image curation, when they can pontificate about how free they are. (i.e. i kinda got in trouble for adding "too many" fair use images of dead people) it's ad hoc cracy, not system; no one cares about the long term trends, so long as their "owned" items are intact. no, i think the only long term solution is some culture change, by training, coaching, therapy. we all need it bad. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 23:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for your positive vote at Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Jameslwoodward. I will do my best to live up the trust you have put in me. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arturo torro.jpg

Hi, Green Giant. What do you think about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amparo-moraleda.jpg? IMHO, it's pretty much the same case as in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arturo torro.jpg, but maybe I'm wrong. Best regards --Discasto talk 14:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done - JoseVidania, Discasto, and Pere prlpz, I've deleted the file as a precaution but if the copyright holder does get in touch with OTRS and licenses it, I'll be happy to restore it. Green Giant (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
"It would be easy to assume that the Commons uploader is the copyright holder but we do not know this for sure e.g. they could have access to the file but that doesn't mean they are the copyright holder" is an interesting point of view. You can be sure I have access to the files that I've uploaded to Commons as "own work", but you can't know for sure that I'm the copyright holder since the only thing you have is my statement and maybe some guesswork, even if I repeat my statement using OTRS. Are you going to delete all my files and anybody else's "own work" ones?--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Pere prlpz, if a file is uploaded to Commons first, we can safely assume that the uploader is the copyright holder, so no, I'm not going to run around deleting such files. If an uploaded file or part thereof has been published elsewhere before being uploaded on Commons, it is reasonable to expect some evidence that the file has been licensed by the copyright holder. For all we know, the full size image may have been uploaded on another website at some point in the past but has been removed later. It is entirely possible that JoseVidania is the photographer or that he received it from Amparo herself or that he downloaded it from the web before it was removed. Unless the page was archived at that point eg by the Internet Archive, it is nearly impossible to say for sure whether the full image was available online at some point. Most websites don't have a history system like Wikimedia sites, which is why we have processes like license review and OTRS i.e. to verify that a file is licensed properly in case it gets changed and we can't check. In fact there are probably thousands of files that were originally on Flickr or Panoramio that have since been taken down there but we have a copy because it was licensed and reviewed. So I don't think I was wrong in closing the DR under COM:PRP. You are however free to disagree and can make a request at COM:UDR. Green Giant (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

For Reupload the file再アップロードについてお伺いいたします。

File:Yoshida Tome 2.jpg was deleted by false information. 
File:Yoshida Tome 2.jpgは間違った情報を根拠に削除されています。
It is not commercial reproduction.
Japanese copyright law allows the reproduction of artistic works located permanently in open places accessible to the public, such as streets and parks, or at places easily seen by the public, such as the outer walls of buildings for non-commercial purposes.
The statue locates in open place accessible to the public in the campus of Kyush University, and it was set up for noncommercial purpose by alumni association of nursing school (若葉会). The photo meets the above condition.

Please see the site [2] (sorry it was written in Jap.).
Then I want reupload the same file soon.
そのような理由から近日中に同画像を再アップロードします。--Hot cake syrup (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hot cake syrup, Commons can only host files that are free for re-use by anybody, for any purpose, even commercially. If there is a non-commercial restriction, we cannot host the file, even though Wikimedia is a non-commercial body. The statement you pointed to above is incomplete; COM:FOP#Japan also states that "therefore, such photographs are not free enough for Commons." Green Giant (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

OTRS ticket

The permission holder has sent an email to permitting me to use a file at commons which i have uploaded here. Can you please add its OTRS ticket number? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done - I've replied to the email and asked them to send an email from the email address given on the website contact page. Green Giant (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Any update as of now? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Pavanjandhyala, no reply received yet. Green Giant (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Hope they do it soon. After i literally tormented them for four weeks, their permission came as the reply to the first mail. While i could come out of the "hangover" due to this supposedly unintended sadism of theirs, this issue strikes me as a thunderbolt. Cruel fate, eh! Face-smile.svg Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm sure they will respond soon. I'll keep an eye on the ticket. Green Giant (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)