User talk:Green Giant/Archive 6

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alleppey.jpg

Hi, please be aware that DRs get archived rapidly after closure. If you revert a closure, it will often also be needed to undo the archiving. I have re-listed this DR - Jcb (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jcb: Ack! Thanks, I got distracted with other DR's. Green Giant (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Incorrect Maps of Mongolia

Hi, I don't quite understand your rationale for keeping here. Those maps have not gone "out of date", they've shown bogus data right from the start. What possible educational use can you see in such a case? I don't think archiving clearly misleading material is really within the project scope. --Latebird (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello. They are not bogus maps but were as accurate as the author could make them. Educational use has a wide latitude of interpretation and in this case they clearly were useful but being superseded does not mean we should delete them. We have an extensive set of old maps but nobody would seriously suggest deleting them even though the vast majority are not likely to be used. If you look at any file, article, category, it will almost certainly have a history of edits, mostly fixing errors made in earlier edits. Would you suggest deleting all of the old versions of the articles on Wikipedia, just because they are not current and they now appear slightly inaccurate? Of course not, which is why we don't delete a file simply because it is old and inaccurate. Put simply, deletion is a last resort, so unless a file fits criteria on COM:D, we encourage people to improve existing files by file renaming, changing the description, uploading corrected versions etc before we'd consider deletion. I hope that clarifies why I closed the DR that way. Green Giant (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Category:Old maps contains maps of historical interest. I don't see how a commons contributer not studying his sources carefully enough could possibly generate this kind of relevance. Yes, they are bogus. Those maps were never useful. They only seemed so until someone had a closer look and detected their issues (I try not to be unnecessarily harsh in deletion requests, maybe that was a mistake here). Being a few years "old" doesn't make them valuable, but only more embarrassing. If really being kept, each of them would need a description saying: "This file shows incorrect information. Do not use." What would the point of that be?
The old versions of articles are hidden in the history, which makes it obvious that the information is outdated (for those who even know to look). The situation with files on Commons is exactly the opposite: The bad ones sit in the same gallery next to the real thing, and the user will only learn that they are bogus once (and if!) they open their page to view the description.
You recommend to upload correct files instead of deleting the old ones. Indeed, correct versions have been uploaded many years ago, just under different names. Should I request them to be renamed to overwrite the bad ones? If you really consider their edit history to be of such high value (but why?), that might be the consequental solution. --Latebird (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@Latebird: you nominated them for deletion, and had a whole month to make the case for deletion. Although DR's can be kept open indefinitely, there has to be a point where it should be closed. You've then asked me here and I've responded. Beyond this, I can only reiterate what I've said before and point you to Commons:General disclaimer, which states that "None of the authors, contributors, sponsors, administrators, sysops, or anyone else connected with Wikimedia Commons in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages." I'm only a volunteer and since you're not happy with my reply, you can renominate the files and make a fresh deletion request. Green Giant (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I came here in the hope to figure out why you seemed to have read a very different nomination than the one I thought I had written. But unfortunately, your answers here don't actually address my quite specific questions, just like your closing comments didn't address the very specific points raised in the nomination. In hindsight, that explains a lot. With a little luck, my next nomination will be closed by someone who takes the time to actually read it. --Latebird (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I have tried to answer your questions, but I am not going to change my interpretation of Commons policies unless you can show consensus by other Commons users. We delete about 10-15,000 file every week, many of which are copyright violations, which is something that is far more important than whether a map was inaccurate. I have given my reasons for closing the DR and given you the option of re-opening it. Whichever way the next admin handles it is fine by me. Green Giant (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Talk page stalker..... :-))) Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Cheers. Such stalkers are always welcome. I really hate it when I click the rollback instead of the link I wanted to click. :) Green Giant (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Будинок пастора(контора ДПДГ Андріївське) 2016.JPG

hello! could you please restore the file? the author added the license to the original file in Ukrainian Wikipedia: uk:Файл:Будинок пастора(контора ДПДГ Андріївське) 2016.JPG: [1] --アンタナナ 03:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Antanana: that's good news but there is one more concern. There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine, which means we can't publish photos of new buildings without permission from the architect of the building or until the architect has been dead for 70 years. Can you tell me what this building is for and whether the photographer can get permission? If there is uncertainty about this, you will have to make a request at COM:UDR. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
that is the "house of a priest", so I assume it is old enough. but I could not find the founding date, so I asked the uploader if he knows anything about it. thank you! --アンタナナ 09:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you rename a file for me please

I uploaded a file with a year typo, please change 2017 to 2016. Thank you. --WPPilot (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@WPPilot: do you want the period between "Seminar" and "by"? Green Giant (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
no thanks for asking --WPPilot (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Seems someone has done the rename. Green Giant (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

OTRS permission

Hi. I noticed that for File:Jackson Yi 20151013.png you determined that the OTRS ticket did not contain sufficient evidence of copyright. This file was earlier tagged {{PermissionOTRS}} by Techyan, which makes me wonder if I could trust him/her with determining OTRS ticket validity. Would you please check a similar image also tagged by Techyan, File:RoyWang.jpg, regarding whether its OTRS ticket contains sufficient evidence of copyright? Thanks. --Wcam (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Wcam: thank you for the info. I've had a look and I'm not fully convinced by the permission because it looks like it is based on screenshots of social media conversations. I have reset the OTRS tag and left a note on the ticket. Green Giant (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Question

You have moved a file after I had named it wrong, but it looks like the original file is still hanging around. on File:Pilatus_PC_12_N983CH_by_D_Ramey_Logan.jpg take a look at the history, and go ahead and remove that file please. Thanks --WPPilot (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@WPPilot: Done. Its just the way that redirects work - I think it shows the image at the target ie the new name. Green Giant (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
One more request (I am cleaning house) I found a file that I mis named 2017 *** = File:2017 National Championship Air Races Pylon Racing Seminar Control Tower by D Ramey Logan.jpg it was uploaded later but if you would please just remove it. I will speedy delete tag it now, thanks --WPPilot (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Вікі любить пам'ятки 2016 в Україні

WLM-logo-uk.svg

Вітаємо!

Триває міжнародний фотоконкурс «Вікі любить пам'ятки»! До 30 вересня включно Ви можете подавати власні фото пам'яток історико-культурної спадщини України — і змагатися за призи.

Окрім традиційних номінацій за найкращі фото і найбільшу кількість сфотографованих об'єктів, у конкурсі також є спецномінації: «Цивільні споруди доби Гетьманщини» та «Національний заповідник "Софія Київська"».

Приєднуйтеся! Зі списками пам'яток можна ознайомитися тут. Більше інформації про конкурс дивіться у блозі конкурсу. – З повагою, Оргкомітет «Вікі любить пам'ятки», 10:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Check video

Please, can you check license of this video? Thanx, --Palu (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

NonFreeWiki

Do you think it will be up soon? I'd love to participate. Face-smile.svg MCMLXXXIX 18:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, no. I'd love it to be operational but it's been a losing battle trying to persuade users that it's a good idea. It's been a proposal for so long that I've lost interest in getting it moving. I'm not sure what else can be done. Green Giant (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

PD-old question

Hello! I was wondering if there is a community consensus on after how much time we can accept file whose author is unknown. Take for instance File:Jean-Baptiste Nouvion.jpg: after 140 years one could consider that it is PD. Any advice? --Ruthven (msg) 16:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Green Giant!

Best Wishes!

Décoration de Noël, place du Molard, Genève 2016.jpg
Best Wishes, Green Giant!
Hi Green Giant, I wish you all the best for the Holidays and a Happy New Year 2017. Face-smile.svg Yann (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Christmas decoration, place du Molard, Geneva.jpg

Ulyana Pashkova

Hi, I restored 2 images you deleted. IMO these were wrongly tagged as copyvios, and are OK until proven otherwise. Please see also Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Serafimdmitriev. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yann: Hmm, I can see what you mean. I will try to be more careful. Much obliged. Green Giant (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Filemoves

Hi GG. I've been trying to find rename requests where I can do the move without leaving behind a redirect, but the files are either in use on a wiki or on a page like User:OgreBot/Uploads by new users/2015 January 26 12:00 (a lot!), and it won't let me do the move without leaving a redirect. Daphne Lantier 02:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Daphne Lantier: I wouldn't worry too much because redirects are cheap. If the file is in use elsewhere then it's best to leave a redirect. I suspect it might be because there is a bot that goes around other wikis and the system is trying to stop it breaking links. Does it create the redirect without saying anything to you? Next time it happens, take a screenshot and email it to me - I'll try to figure it out, although I'm not a computing whizz kid! Ogrebot pages are very useful tools but it doesn't matter if they have red links. I hope that helps. Green Giant (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
If the file is on an Ogrebot page or a wiki page, the check mark for leaving a redirect turns gray and can't be unchecked. If the file is unused, the check mark is black and can be unchecked. But Ogrebot and another one by Didym have a large number of Commons files listed on their pages. I'm talking about maybe 60% or 70% of all files uploaded in the last 5 years or so. Daphne Lantier 18:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmm...then I assume it is the system stopping the fikemove from breaking links. I'd say use the rename link on the file page in these cases. If a file had been at one name for more than a couple of months it's best to leave a redirect because it might be that external websites are linking to that page. Green Giant (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Port Harcourt City

Hello, I noticed you recently deleted File:Port Harcourt City.jpg on the grounds of copyright violation. I checked to see the image here https://constative.com/people/lifestyle/most-beautiful-cities-in-nigeria but didn't find it. I thought modified images are allowed here on commons because it looks pretty much an own work to me. Stanleytux (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Stanleytux: Hello and thanks for asking. The top left image in the montage was cropped from the seventh photo on that website, which has an "All rights reserved" notice at the foot of the page. No other sources were given for any of the photos in the montage. Modified images are only permitted if the source is licensed or public domain. I'd recommend reading COM:DW for a more detailed explanation. Putting someone else's photo into a montage doesn't eliminate the original copyright. Green Giant (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Hello Green Giant, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Chyah uploads

You recently delete a couple of uploads by User:Chyah that I had tagged as copyright and you joined the discussion on my talk page. Many of these others https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Chyah are also incorrectly licensed. I don't currently have time to go through the list, so I am drawing them to your attention. Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Secondarywaltz: Thank you for the note. I've identified and deleted about 50 similar files uploaded by them but don't have the patience to search through the rest yet. I'll get back to it in a day or so if you haven't tagged any more. Green Giant (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Photo of U.F.D. (Band)

You deleted the file UFD5.jpg.Why? The copyright information to the picture wa scorrect, the pic was taken by the uploader claus sterneck who was teh maneger of the band UFD back in the day. Thynk you very much for nothing. --Wahnfried von Mannteufel (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Csterneck, Wahnfried von Mannteufel:, can you verify that User:Csterneck is definitely the copyright holder? That file did not have a license for an entire week, which alone would have been reason to delete it, but User:Csterneck added two licenses today. However, the bigger problem is that this file and the other ones like it are quite small and unclear in comparison to copies already available on the internet e.g. 90svortnvis.wordpress.com/tag/pilgrims/. That doesn't mean that blogger is the copyright holder but don't you think it is odd that they have these large photos but the ones uploaded here are much smaller? Scroll down the page and you'll find this photo (Ufd5.jpg) which the blog says are "pictures of ‘U.F.D.’ (by Eric ‘React’). Put yourself in my position and you can see a lot of evidence suggesting that User:Csterneck might not be the copyright holder. With this possibility I have to assume it is a copyright violation until and unless someone proves it isn't. Commons policy is that User:Csterneck has had a week to fix this problem. I'm willing to give you much more time if you can definitely prove that you are the copyright holder and not this Eric (React). Green Giant (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Code issues in User:Green Giant/common.js

Hi Green Giant, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

  1. You edited User:Green Giant/common.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
  2. Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new jshint issue — the page's status is now having warnings. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
  3. To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!
  1. ISSUE: line 1 character 91: Script URL. - Evidence: mw.util.addPortletLink('p-tb', 'javascript:importScript("MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js");', 'Perform batch task', 't-AjaxQuickDeleteOnDemand');

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 07:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC).

OTRS image

Hi Green Giant. Thanks for your help with the OTRS undeletions. I wanted to let you know about File:Петр Гдадилин.jpg. I came across one ticket filed for it, but after viewing the file itself after undeletion, it appears it was a duplicate of File:Петр Гладилин.jpg which was approved a month ago under ticket:2017080310018386 (Russian, permissions-ru). In the case of this first file, it probably warrants speedy deletion as an identical duplicate. Writing this explanation here for your information. Cheers, seb26 (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Seb26: thank you for the note. I've processed them but am unsure which filename is correct (they differ by one letter?). Please feel free to use filmove if necessary. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Whitelist listenarabic.com?

I checked up on the global block on this late last week, and it is ye olde, and it looked as though it was spam abused at that time at enWP. We might do well to locally whitelist it through Mediawiki:spam-whitelist if we think that it is useful. I didn't have the time to sort through the usefulness of the site.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Cheers for the note. Agreed, it should probably be whitelisted locally, although I think it would be better after the photos in Category:Photos from Listenarabic.com have been checked. The spam filter was triggered when I tried to fix one of the files to give a clickable link to the source. I'll have a look through them tomorrow as soon as I can. Green Giant (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
They were started being loaded late last week where I saw them (and subsequently you) in the log. I reviewed several uploads at that time, and they looked okay in terms of their labelling here reflected the license there with appropriate metadata. Those that I looked at were glam shots, and quite possibly were properly licensed, though one holds back full judgement. Similarly, I didn't have sufficient time to explore deeply, and thought that it needed a larger sample size to get a better understanding of what was evolving.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
If you want to look at the blacklisting ... m:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2009-08#listenarabic.com and to me it would seem that there was little conversation, or clear evidence of xwiki issues.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Please don't add Category:Images from Geograph Britain and Ireland directly to files

Hello. Last week you added [[Category:Images from Geograph Britain and Ireland]] to a few hundred files (e.g. File:Abbot's Farm and Barn - geograph.org.uk - 554987.jpg) that already had {{Geograph}} or {{Also geograph}} templates. This is unhelpful: those templates already apply that category with a sort key generated from the Geograph image ID. Your changes mean that the sort key no longer works on those images, and they end up sorted at the end of the category instead. Do you think you could undo your changes? --bjh21 (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bjh21:. Hello. I’m awfully sorry to have caused you this trouble. These files appeared in the redirected category which is in Category:Non-empty category redirects, which is why I tried to move them. I’ll see what I can do. Green Giant (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I just worked out how to fix the problem with VFC, so I've fixed the remaining 197 files. --bjh21 (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

DR

Hi, Inregards to File:Surrey Fire and Rescue Incident Command Unit.jpg, Wouldn't it be easier for me to just reupload the image?, I know technically the image on Flickr isn't released under a CC licence however the image here is and being absolutely honest we both disagreed with nominating/deleting it, if the image was cropped then I'd be more than happy to reupload it to the same dimensions,
If the uploader changes their mind and changes the Flickr licence then this has no bearing on images here so technically them having a different licence shouldn't have a bearing here ?, ofcourse it's entirely up to you but as I said we both disagreed with deleting it so it kinda makes sense to just reupload?,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Hmm... I'd be more than happy to undelete it and let you upload a new version but we need to be 100% certain that the uploader is the same person as the Flickr user. With a red-link userpage (here and on EN.WP) and no mention on the Flickr/Twitter/Instagram pages of having uploaded here, I’d be hesitant to make the assumption but it was a 5Mb upload, which is larger than what I can download from the current Flickr page, so I’m going to undelete it for you. Green Giant (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi GG, Thanks so much!, Yep it's the same user as both names are the same and camera details are the same (It's likely they quickly uploaded here and at Flickr and maybe simply forgot to change the licence), Anyway thanks again I'll do it later, Thanks :), –Davey2010Talk 20:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Having looked at the image - The uploader there has disabled downloading full size and each method I've tried has so far failed, There doesn't seem to be a way of downloading images that the uploader's restricted so unfortunately there isn't much I can do other than download the whole image and just reupload it, I suppose a somewhat smaller image is better than nothing at all, Anyway many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Eclipse stamps

Considering your recent deletions of these stamps you may want to review Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eclipse stamp (image 1).jpg at this time too. Thanks. Ww2censor (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Cheers. Done. Green Giant (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of "File:131119 b produkte mit label 2 20070723 1421165935 02.jpg"

We originally uploaded the file and must revoke the original permission to publish now. Unfortunately, it turns out that the information about source and author are not correct. We have learned that the file is copyrighted and should not be used. Therefore, the file should be deleted as soon as possible. Many Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metronom Leipzig (talk • contribs) 12:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Answered at Commons:Deletion requests/File:131119 b produkte mit label 2 20070723 1421165935 02.jpg. Green Giant (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Flickr files that changed license

Hi Green Giant, those files nominated for deletion by the user Contribuidor da Wikipédia on 12/12/17 have non-free Flickr license, however their licenses were changed by the Flickr author, but it had passed the Flickr license review with the compatible license (cc-by-sa-2.0) at the time I uploaded, and so I believe that it should be undeleted and added the template {{Flickr-change-of-license}} as the licenses are non-revocable. Best regards. Aspargos (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Aspargos: my sincere apologies, I should have been more careful. I’ve restored them and closed the deletion requests. On a side note, I recommend using the {{Flickr}} template for these files instead of the {{Information}} template. Green Giant (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Do not worry, you've done a great job. Thanks! Aspargos (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again but I believe these files were also uploaded and passed the review (File:Pabllo_Vittar_em_Brasília_5.jpg, File:Pabllo_Vittar_em_Brasília_6.jpg and File:Pabllo_Vittar_em_Brasília_7.jpg). Aspargos (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@Aspargos: ✓ Done. It’s no bother, I’m always happy to restore genuinely licensed files. Green Giant (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

question

hi G G . Why File:Aksalehin120.jpg has been removed? I took that photo and uploaded it on flickr and used it in my article. (طرح_صالحین) tnx Onw4y (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Onw4y: Hello, the file was deleted because we don’t accept the PD-Mark as a license. If you change it to an acceptable license, let me know and I’ll restore the file. Green Giant (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
G G . I changed it to Attribution-ShareAlike on flickr . is it OK . tnx? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onw4y (talk • contribs) 14:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@Onw4y: I’ve restored the file. Please add the license to the file page immediately together with a {{Flickrreview}} template. This will allow someone to review the license and confirm it. Green Giant (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@Onw4y: please can you explain why the same photo has existed online for about three years? Is it actually your photo? For example there is a larger and older copy at onway.ir/?p=6493. Green Giant (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
sorry for delay. I took that photo with my hands with Huawei Y300 Ascend cellphone! I uploaded it to my own wordpress website then ( it was 3 years ago) . ( onway.ir ) . ( you see my username here : Onw4y (talk · contribs) ) . And recently that I joint wikipedia , I wrote an article , and used that photo. Onw4y (talk) 07:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
@Onw4y: Then I recommend that you read COM:OTRS and COM:ET, and send an email from your website to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, confirming that you are the same person. The person who answers your email can then add a special tag ({{Permission OTRS}}) to the file page, greatly reducing the chances that someone might have doubts about the file in the future. Green Giant (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
the second problem is that I am prohibited to edit the article , because of the Template:طرفداری tag! (persian wp) what should I do?!
I think that template is used to remind people of one of the most important rules of Wikipedia - that you should be neutral when you are editing. As for not being able to edit, it is an issue for Persian Wikipedia, so I recommend that you appeal against your editing block on that website. You should be able to leave a message on your own talk page. Green Giant (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately some admins in Persian Wikipedia perform the rules based on their taste or political issues here. and bring the wikipedia out of being fair. for example, I created this article and start writing because its my profession ( I am a teacher ) . but some of this users started sabotaging : they put some relevant political issues in the article .. or another one that I dont want to say. I really "wanted" to write something good and known here. ( the Article is about a general model of teaching and training, a very effecting style , we use for religion and moral teaches to kids and teens) . but some users sticked some parts . rellevant , but really unnecessary and unimportant to article. for example this training style is also used by those people or.. . So, the Article is locked by admins from editing . Its not complete. its wounded. I cant work on it now. tnx. Anyway I follow the orders and rules. \\ Onw4y (talk) 06:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

File:NortheastBrazil.png

When will you repair the damage you caused to several Wikivoyage pages by deleting NortheastBrazil.png? You replaced it by Northeast Brazil 2.svg that has a different color schme. So the map and the text on the page do not match anymore. Since the old image is not available I cannot see what I need: old color versus new color. There is also a problem listed with the new image: {{ValidSVG}}. So an image that was doing a good job: showing with colors the subdivision of the area, has now disappeared and is replaced by an image with problems. Pleas action ASAP. --FredTC (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@FredTC: I’ve restored the inaccurate file and reopened the deletion request, so you can have a look at it. I do not appreciate your angry and ill-informed tone. Green Giant (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Well thank you for giving me the possibility to change the article text to a new file. I'm sorry that you don't like my reaction, but it was caused by the way you handled this. I don't know exactly what you mean by "ill-informed", I was not ill-informed but not-informed by you (the one who deleted the file without informing the ones affected) and that made me angry. Now I can compare both files, I can change the text and the image to enable a deletion of the "inaccurate file". But as long as the alternative has a technical problem, I'm not shure whether I should invest time in changes that could need changes again when the technical probems are solved. I hope deleting files with color schemes will be done more communicative in the future. --FredTC (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
@FredTC: you used capitals on my wikivoyage talk page (a sign of anger on the internet) and you’ve accused me of causing damage like a vandal but you have ignored the fact we have procedures at Commons that do not require admins to inform every single page that might be affected by deletion. Those procedures were agreed on by community consensus, so really your criticism should be directed at the community, not me individually. I usually try to minimise the effects of deletion wherever possible and in this case the discussion was open for over a month but your response shows it’s not worth the effort. If anything you could go and ask the nominator why they didn’t inform you but I suspect you’ll not get the answer you are looking for. Green Giant (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete two files

Hello Green Giant, several days ago you deleted some pictures which I nominated for deletion. Thank you for that! There are two other images (this and this), which I would like to delete. I tried to delete them before, but it was decided to keep them for the reason "PD-textlogo". They are the logo of a company which did not give consent to upload these files. It was a mistake of me to upload them. What can I do to delete the two files? Thank you for your help! --Soluvo (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are also two redirects (see here and here). It would be good to delete the redirects too. How is that possible? --Soluvo (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
@Soluvo:. Hmm that is not an easy task because the German definition of originality is not clear. Both the files do look like they could not be copyright. Has the company been in touch with you? I can only suggest that you (or the company) send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org asking for the files to be deleted. I can’t guarantee that it would work though. Green Giant (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
@Green Giant: Thank you for your answer! The company has not been in touch with me, but I fear they might sue me. Can I re-nominate them for deletion and you delete the two files? --Soluvo (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
@Soluvo: To be honest I don’t think you should worry about being sued. The first thing a company might do is ask us here to remove the file, and if we refuse they might contact the Wikimedia Foundation. It is much less likely that they would bother an individual Wikimedia volunteer. If you look at the German section of COM:TOO you’ll see there are three examples of files that have been deemed to be ineligible for copyright. Certainly File:Laufendes-Auge.jpg looks more complex than your logos. Instead I suggest adding the {{Trademark}} template to each, which should highlight that there are restrictions on how people can reuse the logo. Obviously someone else wouldn’t be able to reuse the logo for a different company or to provide their own services. The only use that the logo would be put to on Wikimedia would be in an educational article, which most companies would be unlikely to have a problem with. I would suggest that if the company is notable enough, perhaps you could start a Wikipedia article about them and use the logo there. Green Giant (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
@Green Giant: Thank you for your help. I will try to do what you recommended. --Soluvo (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Files no longer needed

Thanks for your help.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hi, regarding the recent photo deletion

Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Taiwan , primary schools are 100% governmental institution. Thanks for the time. WCam is from mainland China, he didn't know Taiwanese system. Merry Christmas! ^_^ --19:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Re:Commons:Deletion requests/File:2012-11-22-11-42-53 白雲國小操場.jpg
@It's gonna be awesome: Hi and merry Christmas to you too. Please try to provide a link to clarify what is under discussion. In regards to your comments, yes, the schools are under government control but they are not government agencies per se. On the other hand, the Ministry of Education is a government agency. I also agree that {{PD-ROC-exempt}} cannot apply to photos like this because the purpose of the law was to cover texts etc. If you wish, you can create an entry at COM:UDR to make a case for restoring the file. Just to be clear, where Wcam is from is not relevant to the discussion; I myself have never been anywhere near Taiwan but this is not a criterion that determines the validity of an argument. Green Giant (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your reply! --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 20:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Green Giant. Could you also process a similar DR Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by It's gonna be awesome? Thanks. --Wcam (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wcam: ✓ Done. Green Giant (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Happy Holidays! Artix Kreiger (talk) 04:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Skoyze.jpg

Hi, I'm sorry for my mistake in this file's deletion nomination. Of course I meant that there was no FOP in Greece and not there wasn't any POV. I still wonder how I managed to write down such a thing. --Glorious 93 (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Glorious 93: Don’t worry, we all make mistakes and anyway I knew what you meant to write. Probably a habit from Wikipedia! καλά Χριστούγεννα! Green Giant (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of the pic File:Laminarioj_-_kovrilo_antaŭa_png.png

Hi, Green Giant. I see you deleted the pic Laminarioj_-_kovrilo_antaŭa_png.png. The reason is "Copyright violation", but:

1) The pic is the cover of a poem book.

2) I own the copyright of that cover, because I created it myself.

3) In fact, I own the copyright of the whole book, because I wrote it myself.

So please, explain me where is the copyright violation.

It would be great if I was asked before deleting a file.

--Susomoinhos (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Susomoinhos: Forgive me but we have to be a little suspicious. Unfortunately we get a lot of imposters on Commons who claim to be other people and claim to own a photo or a logo or a movie poster. It is partly because the system allows anonymity; for example, I’m sure you wouldn’t believe me if I claimed to be the famous Jolly Green Giant, would you? So, we have to make a default assumption that all uploads are copyright-protected unless there is proof that the file is licensed by the author or in the public domain. We delete about 15-20,000 files every week and there are very few administrators available, so we don’t have time to check every file in detail.
There are three main solutions to have the file restored:
  1. If you have an official website with this book cover, you can add the CC-license next to it and tell me the URL; or
  2. Read our policy at COM:OTRS and send Wikimedia an email from an official email address using the format at COM:ET; or
  3. Make a request at COM:UDR, where they will probably tell you to try steps 1 or 2 first.
I hope that clarifies the issue. Green Giant (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, simply I don't want to spend a lot of time for that. It's a poetry book in Esperanto - I will not recieve a pence for it. I just thought it could be interesting for Wikimedia, but I don't feel I have to make anything to restore the image throughout such a complicated way. So this is my web page with the picture:

http://suso-moinhos.webnode.pt/

I will not restore it, since I didn't delete it.

Thanks,

--Susomoinhos (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the link but I cannot restore it without a free license. You only have to do one of the three steps above, not all three. Green Giant (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyright question

I don't understand your closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:'A Beautiful Planet' World Premiere (NHQ201604160014).jpg. According to our own template "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted". As I pointed out in the deletion discussion, the metadata of the image indicates that it is copyrighted. How did you conclude that it is public domain? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello @World's Lamest Critic: It isn’t always appropriate to include a lengthy explanation in deletion requests unless there doesn’t seem to be consensus. Now that you’ve asked I’m happy to explain my reasoning. Firstly, the metadata mentions copyright/attribution in three separate slots:
  • Image title | Photo Credit: (NASA/Joel Kowsky)
  • Author | NASA/Joel Kowsky
  • Copyright holder | (NASA/Joel Kowsky)
On the face of it, there appear to be two copyright holders. However, if you read the NASA guidelines at nasa.gov/multimedia/guidelines/index.html, at the 18th paragraph (regarding commercial reuse), it says:
NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted. If copyrighted, permission should be obtained from the copyright owner prior to use. If not copyrighted, NASA material may be reproduced and distributed without further permission from NASA.
So the natural conclusion is that only Joel Kowsky might then hold copyright. Looking at his personal website at kowskyphotography.com/pages/bio, he states:
I am currently a contract photo editor and photographer at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Ergo, Joel doesn’t hold copyright in this instance and therefore the photo is in the public domain. I hope that clarifies the decision to keep the photo but I’m happy to discuss further. Green Giant (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
You seem to be assuming that we know Joel Kowsky was contracted to NASA at the time, but we don't know that. You also seem to assuming (despite the copyright notice) that he is the sole copyright holder and he isn't. If Joel Kowsky 'were' contracted to NASA, he would not be the copyright holder - NASA would, since this would be a work for hire. Regardless, it is identified as a NASA/Joel Kowsly image and the metadata indicates that it is copyrighted. It seems to me that this is a clear case of "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted". What am I missing? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
@World's Lamest Critic: Yes, there is an assumption I made but it is simply this: he has been with NASA since at least 18 February 2014 whereas the photo is from 16 April 2016. When it comes to deletion I try my best to investigate as far as I can with any tools available and I’m always willing to be proven wrong with definitive proof but in this instance I don’t think there is any doubt about the copyright. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Again, Kowsky is a red herring. The metadata indicates it is copyrighted. You have not explained why that should be ignored. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
To be fair I think we have reached the end of this discussion because you’ve now gone full circle back to the start of your line of argument. I have given plenty of explanation above about why neither of them holds copyright and plenty of discussion took place at the deletion request page. If you wish to pursue this further, please feel free to email them both and ask for their input. Ask them to send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with yourself included in the CC line and let me know. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't know why you would suggest contacting NASA or Kowsky since it's not their problem, it's our problem. My argument has never changed. The image is marked as copyrighted in the metadata (the field is "copyright status" and the value is "copyrighted"). "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted." And it is so noted. I understand that you aren't interested in continuing this discussion, but you have not explained why you are ignoring this fact. If you did and I missed it, please do my the courtesy of quoting it for me. Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
What on Earth is wrong with contacting them? Unless you lack the physical ability to scroll up the page and read what has already been written, there is nothing more to discuss. Joel says he works for NASA, and NASA doesn’t usually hold copyright. If you are unwilling to contact Joel or NASA, or to provide any other substantive arguments, I’d suggest opening a new section at Commons:Village pump/Copyright and if there is some new evidence unearthed I’ll look at the DR again. Until then please don’t keep banging the same drum. Look for a new tune to play. Green Giant (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I will start a discussion on that noticeboard. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

unsigned posts

I saw you pasted in a message about signing at UnDR today. It's much easier to use the template {{Unsigned3}} -- it takes the same parameters as {{Unsigned2}} -- {{unsigned3|date and time|username}} and takes much less time to do. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Ah yes, cheers for the heads-up. I have just been experimenting with custom notes e.g. at User:Green Giant/Unsigned and User:Green Giant/Note, by substitution, which is why it looks pasted. Green Giant (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I've written several such notes, all of which are available as templates. See:
I like the unsigned3 format because there is a bot that puts unsigned2 in place and we can add the note by just changing the 2 to 3. Feel free to suggest changes to it -- I don't see any reason why we need two such templates. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Closing my RfA

Hello Green Giant,

As previously said on my RfA and since the debate on canvassing accusation is now settled (no consensus but enough information shared so each has enough information to make his opinion), I'am considering withdrawing my RfA. Since I appreciated your vote's rational, I prefer to ask you for guidance on it.

  • I previously stated that I was giving 2 days to my RfA then would likely withdraw
  • We are about 24hrs away from normal closure
  • I don't know the process of RfA withdrawing, should I fill something ?

Yug (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Yug:. It is very unfortunate that the RfA went this way because I had hoped to see a successful second RfA in a few months. It is entirely up to you to close it at anytime. If you wish I can close it for you. It requires putting some boilerplate text to make clear it is closed. The page is then protected from further editing, categorised at Category:Unsuccessful requests for adminship, and listed at Commons:Administrators/Archive/Unsuccessful requests for adminship. I hope that clarifies the procedure. Green Giant (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
ok, thanks for the guidance. PC is turned off now so i will do tomorrow.
If you look for more successful RfA, it may be needed to look into this as well. I don't think it to be malicious but it would be better to let applicant write their RfA peacefully if we wish higher successful rates. 50mins was a bit short to write a solid RfA to be voted on. Yug (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello Green Giant, I confirm would like to close my RfA. I saw this practice: request by applicant to admin. Could you help me for that ? Yug (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks and thanks for the guidance & vote ! Issue closed. Yug (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@Yug: I was slowly composing some advice but we had an edit conflict. I am happy to help you prepare for a second RfA but I would recommend a lot of patience and to wait at least six months. In the intervening time I would suggest engaging in some of the activities such as anti-vandalism work, looking for copyright violations especially amongst new uploads, trying to fix some files at Category:Missing legal information, etc in addition to your proposed project work. I would also recommend having a look through some recent RfA’s and note the sort of questions that are asked. It’s a good idea to make a checklist of things to do that would provide evidence for when you apply again. For example I used to tag a lot of copyright violation files, answered questions at the help desk/village pump, joined OTRS to help answer emails sent to Wikimedia (particularly about Commons files), looked on other wikis for free-licensed files that could be transferred to Commons (e.g. Meta-Wiki, Wikibooks and Wikisource), etc. I also became familiar with Commons policies in regard to copyright in different countries, acceptable licenses, freedom of panorama, threshold of originality etc. In particular, although I disagree with edit counts for RfA’s, it is helpful to have a larger edit count over the previous 6-12 months. For example I think I had about 40,000 edits in the year before my RfA (a significant number were semi-automated edits though). That’s an extreme example but about a thousand edits each month for approximately six months would be a good target. I hope that gives an idea of how to approach this. If you need more advice, please feel free to ask me. Green Giant (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello Giant, thanks for the recommendations.
I cannot provide this level of commitment anymore as I now work in start up conditions and have correct IRL family and associative lives with Wikimedia France. I used 3 weeks Xmas vacation to jump back on the ACC and SO projects, list the to do, noticed and though my expertise (Chinese characters graphy) could speed up a spring clean up of the said projects. This plan being my extreme potential involvement. Involvements on the RD and vandalism would be artificial and time consuming. The community's request for all admin to be complete multitasking admins is beyond my reach (time and will limitation). Yug (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Aside of what ! I will do some calm review in the ACC and SO project. I also now try to raise awareness about the inadequate RfA selection process.[Edit:I actually prefer to not take up engaments]
There will be 50 millions file in 2018, we cannot afford half of the 234 admins to be long time zombies under 50 deletions / 6 months, nor only 12 new admins a year. It's not sustainable, not healthy for the community nor the admins themselves. Wiki communities have stressing and cooling periods. Given numbers of successful RfA and the tone / red-flags I noticed, we are in a stressed period. I will push a bit so people realize that the numbers and process must change. (I don't expect it to give me adminship tho Face-grin.svg) Yug (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Post note: 20 admins have lost their admin rights in 2017. Yug (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
XRay may worth mentoring for a 2nd RfA. Yug (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@Yug: I agree it is very unsustainable to have so much going on but so few active administrators. However, any necessary change is likely to be incremental rather than drastic. In my personal opinion, one of the problems is that we don’t have as much engagement with other wikis as we should. There are, for example, dozens of users involved in the File namespace at the different Wikipedias and Wikisources, who are not active at Commons. I feel that we should be encouraging them to become active here too, whilst also encouraging active Commoners to become active elsewhere too. One major issue is free-licensed and PD files uploaded locally to other wikis, e.g. the thousands of files in Category:Creative Commons files on English Wikipedia, many of which could quite easily be hosted here but we don’t have enough people looking in the right places. We also have a deficient system of deletion, which could do wonders if every time a file was nominated for deletion here, a bot should leave a note on the talk page of every article/chapter/course/quote/transcription on other wikis that use that file. There have been instances of upset users from other wikis only realising that a file was nominated when it goes missing from a page there.
Personally I think we could ease some requirements and tighten others. For example a file that is tagged as a copyvio can be deleted immediately but many files are nominated with Deletion Requests, which nominally last seven days. Quite often there is no response from the uploader because some people don’t login every day or even every week. It wouldn’t hurt to change the policy to something like 28 days to give time for more input from users. Currently there are 39 days worth of deletion requests waiting to be closed (with another 8 due to join them soon). We could cut the backlog to just 18 days by granting an extra 21 days to each DR. It is pretty much the default position, so why not formalise it?
To touch on an issue raised at your RfA, the minimum requirements to retain adminship is 5 admin actions in six months. I accept that we all become busy in real life, but in my opinion the threshold is far too low. It should be at least 100 admin actions over six months, which is still easy to achieve but pushes a few admins to do an extra 95 actions. We even had a bureaucrat who had been logging in every six months, doing five admin actions, for about five years. Green Giant (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Agree, wiki and democratic community only allow incremental changes. Up to a core of individuals to structure the issue, its facts, make it readable and raise awareness, change one tiny thing here and there On tiny actionables :
  • RfA candidacy process :
    • create page with potential RfA candidates, listing them
    • set up mentorship for RfA,
    • nominate more for RfA and mentoring the applicant (help to answer the voters concerns)
    • remind civility (RfA and volunteer work should be positive, inclusive, mentoring, constructive, not in part a blunt stoning zone)
    • Half of voters are Commons admins, which is a biases of representativity and an oligarchic selection of candidates. Canvassing accusation and Dave2010 position that "relevant expertise" means "expertise in RfA" is representative of this state of mind.
  • RfA quantitative and qualitative analysis
    • collect numbers, make them accessible and visible, make sense of them (analysis)
    • Average admin in 2017 has 60 actions / 6 months
    • Top third in 2017 has 74,162-187 actions / 6 months, admins from #1 to #75 (In term of quantity, we actually just need them XD)
    • Middle third in 2017 has 187-24 actions / 6 months, admins from #76 to #150
    • Bottom third in 2017 has less than 24 actions / 6 months, admins from #151 to 234
    • Table RfA entrances vs exits vs files on commons
    • Table of unsuccessful RfA vs reasons of failure(I saw a hand of "I want to be admin on THIS project.s" being rejected, it's like having an upper FBI, but denying having municipal police)
  • Active admins HR management
    • Recommend more clean up of the tail (bottom third with less than 24 actions / 6 months) so we realize we only have 150 "active" admins
    • Find out the Average Actions per Month (AAM) curve along time for all admins
    • Recommend integration of as many new admins, who will likely have higher AAM the bottom third
I'am structuring here some ideas, but we may now or soon move this to a dedicate draft page to co-edit with the community. Yug (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: I listed mainly the point I though of, I haven't integrate your points yet (automatic message on local wikis, encouraging Wikipedia users to become involved here, more than 100 actions / 6 months, etc). Feel free to edit and add those to the structured bullet list above. Yug (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest creating a draft page linked to COM:Village Pump/Proposals. Note a fresh proposal had been made about admin activity. Green Giant (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Awesome Face-grin.svg, one push underway. I voted. Then really needs to soften up the gate for RfA. Yug (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)