User talk:AntiCompositeBot/Archive 1

File wrongly tagged for deletion

Hi!

AntiCompositeBot tagged my file (Av Lourenço Peixinho - Aveiro - Aerial.jpg for deletion, for not having a license tag, but it has one ({{FoP-Portugal}}).

Can someone help me? Thanks.JonJon86 (talk) 10:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello JonJon86, while {{FoP-Portugal}} is a licensing tag, it does not fully describe the copyright status of the image. That photo has two different copyrights: the (potential) copyright of the buildings, and the copyright of the photograph itself. {{FoP-Portugal}} only applies to the buildings, not the copyright in the photo itself, so you will need to add an additional copyright tag to the file description page. For more information, see Commons:Derivative works. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply AntiCompositeNumber! In Portugal photographs have been consistently specifically required to have a significant degree of creativity in order to be copyrighted (COM:TOO Portugal). Can you help me translating this into a tag?JonJon86 (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@JonJon86: Hmm.. If that standard applies here, it would be {{PD-ineligible}}. However, that photo would probably be above the threshold of originality in the US, and per Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_US_and_non-US_copyright_law is non-free. The best place to discuss that would be COM:DR, not here though. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nuria_Montserrat_Pulido.jpg#filehistory

Aquesta imatge va sortir de la pàgina de científiques catalanes que elles mateixes van cedir. La url de la pàgina està adjuntada al pujar la foto https://www.accc.cat/cientifiques-catalanes-2-0/. Al mateix temps vaig enviar un correu a la pròpia Núria Montserrat demanant-li que enviï una autorització, i sembla que encara no ho ha fet. Li recordaré. Gràcies per la vostra vigilància. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olesana (talk • contribs) 15:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I looked for an OTRS email about this file, and did not see one. https://www.accc.cat/cientifiques-catalanes-2-0/ is CC-BY-ND, which is non-free and not allowed on Commons. See Commons:Licensing. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Ржевский мемориал.jpg and File:Открытие Ржевского мемориала.jpg

I have added licenses to both images. Can I remove the warning? Каракорум (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Каракорум: I have removed the deletion tag from the images, but you may remove deletion tags from AntiCompositeBot yourself in the future. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Manuel Mendes.png

The image is a mugshot created by a policial department of the Portuguese Government in 1946.

Acscosta (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Acscosta: I have applied the appropriate license tag to the image. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Montmartre_phonebook_listing.png

Clearly labeled Public domain, non-creative work, with actual text quote from that section, since it's from a telephone directory. (Not "PD-self" because not by self; not "PD-govt" because not by govt. Is there a named or numeric PD tag for phone books?)

But the bot tagged it for deletion anyway. So what now? – _•Raven  ^.talk 07:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@.Raven: You can use {{PD-ineligible}} for works that are public domain because they are below the threshold of originality (like phone books). I've added the appropriate license tag and removed the deletion notice. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Italy-CAD-OBD

Hello,

Please consider {{Italy-CAD-OBD}} to the list of valid licenses checked by the robot. You can find an example in File:Riserva_naturale_della_Macchia_di_Gattaceca_e_Macchia_del_Barco_-_panchina_area_sosta_piazza_di_Spagna.jpg. Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 14:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Ignoring nobots

@AntiCompositeNumber: Hi, as a different solution, I was trying to use {{Nobots}}, but it seem ignoring it. See special:Diff/430327862 for instance. Any advice? --Ruthven (msg) 16:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ruthven: I'd fix the template myself, but it's protected. The easiest fix is to add {{Cc-by-4.0}}, which will fix the machine-readable data and include the link to the license text that the CC-BY-4.0 license requires. I've done that in Template:Italy-CAD-OBD/sandbox, can you copy it over?

As far as {{Nobots}} goes, AntiCompositeBot uses pywikibot's implementation of the bot exclusion protocol. Due to phab:T153541, per-bot exclusion doesn't quite work all the time. {{Nobots}} with no parameters will work though, and I have a patch submitted to fix that problem. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Putting edit-warring protection in the bot is probably also a good idea, I'll do that when I get around to it. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello @AntiCompositeNumber: , thanks for your answer. Actually I tried to add machine readable data to the license template; see by yourself: special:Diff/430313242. But I might have missed something, because the bot keeps coming back :D Do you know what have I missed? Cheers --Ruthven (msg) 06:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ruthven: The <span class="licensetp_*"></span> tags must be inside an element with .licensetpl. You should also add {{License template tag}}, which ACB uses to double check. However, using the standard license template instead is a much better idea. As it stands, any file that uses that template without also adding {{Cc-by-4.0}} is in violation of the license as there is no link to the license text. Please just use the standard template. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I've seen that you've corrected the license yourself. Thank you (and thanks to Platonides as well for the support). --Ruthven (msg) 08:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

My pleasure Platonides (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Epistle to Galatians Illuminated (cropped) - Scribal abbreviation "p" for "per".jpg isss verry o-oold so PD !

Dear Bot or @AntiCompositeNumber ,

This file is just a cropped version of a PD-old-100-1923 bible page, so it is definitely OK, right? Please stop terrorizing and rampaging :-), thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hansmuller: Looks like CropTool got confused by a redirect, leading to a blank page. I'd suggest complaining to Commons talk:CropTool or the GitHub page about that. The file's fine now that you've fixed the description page. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@User:AntiCompositeNumber Excuse me for my exclamation, thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Rebecca Brown (Yoder), M.D.jpg

Hi AntiCompositeBot,

I got Dr. Rebecca's picture from her husband via email attachment also, he granted a right to be used by Wikipedia Commons; But, I don't know how to tag this picture in order to be used by Wikipedia Commons. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joedav (talk • contribs) 04:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Joedav, welcome to Wikimedia Commons. All files on Commons must be freely licensed so that anyone can use them, for any reason (including commercially). Only the copyright holder, who in most cases is the original photographer, can release a work under a free license. Please have the copyright holder contact the Commons OTRS team by following the instructions at Commons:OTRS. Thanks, AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joedav (talk • contribs) 17:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Kripner Rudolf C.

Tak stačí? V šabloně chyběl jeden }. To nešlo opravit?--Martin wolf (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Martin wolf: Great! Looks good to me. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Files tagged for deletion

Hi!

Can someone remove tags from deletion following files? File:Tihanovskaja2020.jpg File:Lukashenko2020.jpg File:Kanopackaja2020.jpg File:AndreyDmitriyeu2020.jpg File:Cherechen.jpg

Thank you! {Myatna (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)}

@Myatna: There is no license tag on those file pages. All files on Wikimedia Commons must have been published under a free license. Under what license were these photos published? --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

AntiCompositeNumber

They are published by Belarusian government,. What tag should I use to remove it from deletion?

Myatna (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Myatna: Works that are exempt from copyright in Belarus use {{PD-BY-exempt}}. However, the criteria in that template do not apply in this situation, as these photos are not formal documents or state symbols and signs, as defined in Belarus law. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Licence updated

Thank you for the warning put on file File:Tracé de l'ancienne ligne ferroviaire de Montluçon à Gouttières.png. The OSM licence was actually indicated (ODBL), but i found the correct model for OSM maps. Djam (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Djam: Wikimedia Commons uses a set of license tags to help track licenses and ensure that we comply with their requirements. The tag for OSM ODbL works is {{ODbL OpenStreetMap}}. {{Openstreetmap}} (which you used) includes that tag for you, so there are no longer any problems with that file. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Bandera interlingua

Por qué dice que eliminará mi archivo si está bien, está basado en otras imágenes de dominio público que están en wikimedia Sertralix (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sertralix: The file did not have a license tag. You have added one, so I have removed the deletion notice. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

A question about my user talk

Hello! I noticed that you sent me a note saying that a file that I have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:义务教育阶段初级中等学校毕业生道德与法治学业水平调研 1.png, is a derivative work, and the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work, here I explain to you: what I capture is a image of the document, and I am also the creator of the original of the document. I mean to convert each pdf page into a png or extract all images contained in a pdf. I saw Commons:Derivative works, and I am using macOS and Adobe Acrobat DC. Certainly, the same is true for another file. So what more I shold do and in which file attribute do I have to add the missing information? Thank you in advance! Yours sincerely I'm purine. (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@I'm purine.: AntiCompositeBot only left the message about the image not having a license. All files on Wikimedia Commons must be licensed under a free license, and should indicate that using a copyright tag. If the file is your own work, you can pick one of the recommended licenses from Commons:Copyright tags/Commonly used licenses. The other images in the set use {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}. Another user left the message about the file appearing to be a derivative work. Though I am unable to read the document, I would have agreed with them that it does not look like typical own work. Now that you have clarified that you have indeed created it, I do not see a reason to continue to doubt the sourcing. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Ras-le-bol !

Périodiquement un robot mal dressé, déverse des avis pour absence de licence qui remplissent ma page de discussion. Pourtant à l'item réutilisation figure bien la dite licence (cc-by-sa-4.0). Pourriez-vous dompter ce dernier avatar de robot malappris qui ne sait analyser que la présentation basique des Descriptions ? Merci d'avance.
De plus il paraît que les robots ne parlent qu'anglais (enfin, ils le croient...) voici donc ce que j'ai tenté de lui expliquer :
Fed up! Periodically a badly trained robot, pours out notices of lack of license... with superfluous oratory precautions that fill up my discussion page. However, the reuse item contains the said license (cc-by-sa-4.0). Could you tame this last avatar of an unlearned robot that only knows how to analyze the basic presentation of the Descriptions? Thanks in advance.
À bientôt, sans doute.
Daniel Villafruela (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Daniel Villafruela. With File:Vézènobres-Tour de Sabran-20200702.jpg and File:Lunel-Maison Philippe le Bel-Attributs du pouvoir royal--20200707.jpg, you specified the license on the file description page, but a syntax error prevented it from being visible. This is unfortunate, but it is necessary that the license template be visible. When you uploaded File:Avena fatua-Folle avoine-Épilet-20150527.jpg, however, you did not include any license tag at all, and the bot detected that correctly. It is your responsibility to include a valid license tag each time you upload a file to Wikimedia Commons. The UploadWizard can help you to upload files without error.
Bonjour Daniel Villafruela. Avec File:Vézènobres-Tour de Sabran-20200702.jpg et File:Lunel-Maison Philippe le Bel-Attributs du pouvoir royal--20200707.jpg, vous avez spécifié la licence sur le page, mais une erreur de syntaxe l'a empêchée d'être visible. C'est malheureux, mais c'est nécessaire que le bandeau de licence est visible. Mais quand vous téléversez File:Avena fatua-Folle avoine-Épilet-20150527.jpg, vous n'avez inclus aucun bandeau de licence, et le robot marchait correctement. C'est votre responsabilité d'inclure un bandeau de de licence chaque fois vous téléversez un fichier sur Wikimedia Commons. L'assistant de téléversement peut vous aidez avec téléverser des fichiers sans erreur. Cordialement, AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Merci AntiCompositeNumber, la légendaire production de la bureaucratie française n'est rien à coté de celle qui s'accumule avec le formalisme et le juridisme des Wiki..., Pour celles où manque la licence je me fais un devoir de l'y ajouter, mais reprendre tous les fichiers que j'ai versé me ferait tellement de travail que j'abandonne, Je crains même de n'avoir plus assez de temps, supprimez tout ce que vous voulez ...

Thanks AntiCompositeNumber, the legendary production of the French bureaucracy is nothing compared to the one that accumulates with the formalism and the juridism of the Wiki..., For those where the license is missing, I make a point of adding it, but taking back all the files that I poured would make me so much work that I give up, I'm even afraid that I don't have enough time, delete everything you want ...

Daniel Villafruela (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

About Jorge de Lima's file

Hi! The file is a public domain of National Library from Brazil, a Biblioteca Nacional. How can I describe this and stop the exclusion of the file? Thanks, Augustprince (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bilhete_de_Jorge_de_Lima_a_Arthur_Ramos_apresentando-lhe_pessoa_de_sobrenome_Francal.jpg

Hello Augustprince. Do you know why the file is in the public domain? --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Valid license

Some files that I uploaded was tagged by this bot. They arefrom the Danish National Gallery and were released under a "CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) " license. Is that a valid license and if so how do I correct it on the page?Ramblersen2 (talk) 09:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Never mind - my question has been answered elsewhere.Ramblersen2 (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Minha página foi marcada com sem Copyright ou inconclusivo

Se você clicar no link da página você pode encontrar os direitos de licença, claros na página está bem visível embaixo do logo procure lá, tome mais cuidado porque seu Bot cometeu um erro! Junior Silva Rodriguess (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Junior Silva Rodriguess: AntiCompositeBot is not an administrator, and can not delete files. It noticed that the file did not have a proper license tag, and requested that the file be deleted for that reason. A human administrator, User:EugeneZelenko, then speedily deleted the file as a logo that is protected by copyright. You will have to ask them about why they deleted the file. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

File:L' Ile Mysterieuse Jules Ferat.jpg

I beleive that a more suitable label is now added. Please check it and inform about. Thanks in advance, --ΑΝώΔυΝος (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@ΑΝώΔυΝος: I have added a copyright tag to the file and removed the deletion template. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks! Cheers from Greece. --ΑΝώΔυΝος (talk) 05:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Having a Pixabay license but not accepting

Hello AntiCompositeBot,

Please verify my file[Trees on the sides of the road]. It is properly licensed under the pixabay license given under Pixabay Images license. Please take out the tag from my file as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributers2020 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 4 September 2020‎ (UTC)

Copied from Special:Permalink/447977407 --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Contributers2020: You have to use {{Pixabay}}, not just a link to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Pixabay. I've fixed that for you on File:Trees on the sides of the road.jpg, confirmed the file's license, and removed the deletion tag. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Can I be a reviewer of my file and give the template as "verified"

Hello AntiCompositeBot,

Because no one reviews my file as this is originally from Pixabay and this file was published before Jan 2019. So can I review my own file? These are some files which are marked as not reviewed. But please give the answer for reviewing my own file. [Locomotive train found in Russia.jpg (Not reviewed)] [A yellow Hibiscus flower.jpg (Not verified)] Thanks and regards, Contributers2020

@Contributers2020: No, you can not review your own files. Please see Commons:License review for more information. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment- Please review the files I have made if I cannot review my own file. Thank you, Contributers2020 (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

St. Mary-Marne

This photo is attributed to the incorrect picture. I tried to delete it and replace it with a correct photo, but Wikipedia won't allow me to edit my own work. I have changed the name and uploaded the correct photo with this name.

Go ahead and delete it.

Wingerham52 (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wingerham52: I have merged that file into File:St. Joseph-Wright.jpg, where it now appears as an old revision. In the future, you can use the Move button in the More dropdown menu to request that a file be renamed. Please let me know if you have any questions or need help with anything else. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Bug

In Special:Diff/467416286/467435921 the bot failed to find {{cc-by-3.0}}; possibly because of an unclosed -->. A simple `grep` approach would probably have found the tag. —Sladen (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sladen: This is not a bug, it is intentional. Certain information, such as the name of the license and a link to the license text, are required to be displayed by the terms of the license. If there is no license tag on the file description page, that information is not displayed and the file's usage violates the license. It also makes it very difficult for others to find the license and reuse the file under the terms of the license. For this reason, AntiCompositeBot enforces that recently-uploaded files must display a valid license tag. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

T-Bar

OMG,I have to get the picture from somewhere,understood.Is that the reason to delete my work,i used to need 1 hour to create a file. MkIc (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@MkIc: The Commons licensing policy requires that you only upload files that have been released under a free license so that anyone may use them in any way, with few restrictions. Most works, including works you find on other websites, are not compatibly licensed and can not be uploaded to Commons. Please see Commons:First steps for an introduction to what can and can not be uploaded to Commons. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Dont Delete

@AntiCompositeBot: I fixed it ... please don't delete it https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Visit_OKI.png because the image is in accordance with https://www.kaboki.go.id/dinas/budpar.html give it a chance on my picture,just this picture.....if for example there is an error ... please tell me how to fix it--Andi Ramdan Manesa (talk) 07:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Andi Ramdan Manesa: https://www.kaboki.go.id/dinas/budpar.html is a set of instructions for repairing cassette tapes. I don't see how it is relevant. I now see that you have requested the deletion of File:Visit OKI.png. Would you like it to be deleted or not? --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Some Introductory Historical Observations.pdf

I have received [a message] that copyright status of the File:Some Introductory Historical Observations.pdf is unclear and so it may be deleted. I am convinced that the provided licence is absolutely clear. Can you please specify, which part of the provided licence do you consider unclear? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: Commons policy requires that you include a copyright tag on the file description page when you upload it. This is important to ensure that we comply with any relevant licenses and for categorization purposes. Krd has added the {{Pd-author}} template to the file page and it is no longer subject to deletion. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I see, thanks for explanation. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Europäischer Stör.jpg

I loaded up my photo as own work. Not more to say. The tag for deletion is wrong. --JPF (talk) 05:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, the license was missing. That is sth different than the message said. --JPF (talk) 05:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

File:OzanGider.jpg

Hi Admin, this is an "own work" file imported from TR:WP. Your bot claims it has no license or permission. Probably I did not know how to indicate that. Can you please help? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• I guess I could control the above situation, hopefully. I take the opportunity to ask you (I mean your operator :) about the File:Justyna Bojczuk.jpg which was recently "updated". (Indeed replaced.) Now I see a Facebook inscription at the metadata. I do not know if this file is OK, and I doubt one can simply "replace" a previous image under the pretext of upgrading. Best. --E4024 (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

  @E4024: FileImporter wasn't properly configured for tr.wikipedia.org, so templates did not get replaced automatically. There was no redirect from {{Kişisel-2}} to {{Self}}, so the licenses did not appear. I have fixed both of these things and cleaned up the file description page. I have also split the new revision of File:Justyna Bojczuk.jpg into File:Justyna Bojczuk 2020.jpg, tagged it no permission, and warned the uploader about overwriting existing files. The policy on that is COM:OW, and as you guessed, it's not a good idea to overwrite an existing file with a completely different file. Let me know if you see any other problems. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you very much, very kind of you. Regrettably TR:WP is run in what I call an alaturka manner, a word we use differently than in other languages. It does not mean a proper style, it simply means inefficiently, at least for this scribe. That is why I try to keep away from that place. Thanks again. Best. E4024 (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Hi again. Is everything in order here? Thx. E4024 (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  @E4024: I'm going to go with "no". DR'd. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

VRISHABH_PRATAP_SINGH.jpg

i want to delete the file https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VRISHABH_PRATAP_SINGH.jpg pls help me in thi. this was created by me by mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by VRISHABH PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN (talk • contribs) 07:12, 19 November 2020‎ (UTC)

@VRISHABH PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN: File:VRISHABH PRATAP SINGH.jpg has been deleted by Túrelio. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Diebold Schilling Chronik (Bürgergemeindeversammlung Luzern 1508).jpg

Hi,

my bad regarding File:Diebold Schilling Chronik (Bürgergemeindeversammlung Luzern 1508).jpg, I messed up while loading with the source code, I do apologize. I've allowed myself to delete the banner (the license template was already there but the bot couldn't have read it because of my error).

Yours, ArkheinVonB (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@ArkheinVonB: No problem, thank you for fixing the issue. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Uploader or other user mistakes

Dear Bot :)

Sometimes the uploader of some image, or any other user who do not know Commons well, play with the data of the uploaded images, deleting the information there (license, author etc) because they fill the page with gibberish (WP-like text). (This happens also frequently on files that have been transferred from some WP, the license info, like "own work", is lost on the way to Commons.) Then you (I mean you, the bot, not the admin :) go there and tag the file as "No license". In the past I have been able to save a few of them. I see other users saving several of them. However I'm afraid some of those files simply get deleted because the license info has been removed or not imported... To be or not to be. This is the problem. Best. --E4024 (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@E4024: That is the reason that the bot only targets recent uploads. Administrators are also supposed to check the history before deleting a file tagged as not having a license. Because of the number of primary and custom license templates on Commons, it would be very difficult for the bot to try to check the history for a license. In any case, files are required to have valid license tags at all times. When they don't, that needs to be brought to the attention of the uploader and to others, and the file needs to be deleted if the problem can't be fixed. If someone is unsure, they have a week from when the bot tags the file is deleted to ask for help. We don't expect that everyone does everything correctly all the time, especially when they are new. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Tom Sundby Iraklis.jpg

I have received https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:R%C3%B8edS#Copyright_status%3A_File%3ATom_Sundby_Iraklis.jpg I have the permission from the copyright holder Ποδοσφαιρικό Μουσείο Ηρακλή Θεσσαλονίκης https://www.facebook.com/Ποδοσφαιρικό-Μουσείο-Ηρακλή-Θεσσαλονίκης-107059494245625/ to upload to Wikimedia Commons. The image file was sent by Ποδοσφαιρικό Μουσείο Ηρακλή Θεσσαλονίκης to me. What kind of info missing to clear the copyright status? RøedS (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Kirk Presidential Address 1949.pdf

Kia ora. I got a message from the Bot that "This media file does not have sufficient information on its copyright status." However, I could not find the specific license (international) I needed from the upload wizard's list of Creative Commons licenses. So I added the specific info under "other license" in the text field: Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licence https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ I think I have substantiated the file license and source as indicated in the Bot's auto message. Please let me know how else I might validate this file in order to make sure it is appropriately labeled. Thank you, Randolph Randolph.hollingsworth (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Randolph.hollingsworth: All files on Wikimedia Commons must be licensed so that anyone can use them for any purpose, including making derivatives and commercial use. Files licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND can not be accepted. For more information, please see Commons:Licensing. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying. I'll try and remove the image and just keep my transcript.... or, perhaps I have to start over and just upload my transcript...? Randolph.hollingsworth (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Red silk knitted waistcoat.jpg

I don't believe there is anything wrong with the licensing on this file. The photo is licensed as described on the museum page. The object in the photo is several hundred years old and is therefore in the public domain. Two separate licenses are required with the Art Photo template. Can you explain your thinking here? Am I missing something? - PKM (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@PKM: At the time the bot tagged the file, the file did not include a valid copyright tag, as required by COM:LI. You fixed that correctly in October, and the file is not at risk of deletion. You may remove or archive the message on your talk page if you feel it is no longer relevant. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh was that an old message from the bot? My apologies. - PKM (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Erwin Wolanek - 1935.jpg

Please specify your comment for this file, in my opinion everything is o.k. Additionally, I can't find the discussion page for this deletion proposal.--Gampe (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gampe: AntiCompositeBot is a bot that automatically checks new files for a valid copyright tag. At the time the bot reviewed the file, there was no copyright tag on the file description page. You have now added one, so the deletion tag no longer applies. Files with no license indicated may be deleted without discussion, usually after a 7-day waiting period. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

New licence tag

Hello, AntiCompositeBot[’s operator]! I just created {{OGL-BC}} by copying the code & structure from {{OGL-Alberta}}, in response to a query at COM:VPC from a user whose file you[r bot] had tagged. Do I have to add it to a list somewhere for you[r bot] to recognize it, or is the categorization all that’s needed?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479: AntiCompositeBot uses two methods to detect license templates: Commons:Machine-readable data and {{License template tag}}. The template includes machine readable data in Template:OGL-BC/layout, and it also transcludes {{CC-Layout}} which includes {{License template tag}}. The license tag should be properly detected by AntiCompositeBot with no further changes, please let me know if there are any issues. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Lageplan - Großer Tiergarten, 2020.png

Hi,

I have provided license information about the file but still I have got the warning banner by the bot... According to the license, redistribution and use, with or without modification, are permitted... Please help me :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liglioto (talk • contribs) 10:33, 12 December 2020‎ (UTC)

@Liglioto: I have added the correct license template to the file. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

File:2020_My_Country.png

Your bot is trying to delete my image saying that there is no license found even though there is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supritchaudhary (talk • contribs) 20:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Supritchaudhary: According to http://2020mycountry.com/, the game depicted by File:2020_My_Country.png is not under a free license, so we can not have a screenshot of it on Commons. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

How do I reply to the license when there is no information on the document?

I am writing in reply to your directive to give you license or copyright information. As indicated in earlier descriptions, there are no indications anywhere in the document as to claims on authorship, copyright or registration. What information should I supply? File:C&O advertisement for 'Sportsman'-1.jpgDogru144 (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dogru144: The {{PD-US-no notice}} template you applied appears to be correct based on the information you provided. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber: Thank you.Dogru144 (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Javier Dámaso 2019

Hello, The author of the image Javier Dámaso 2019.jpg, Elena Parrilla, has sent the permission to the following e-mail. permissions-commonswikimedia.org dated January 21, 2021. Thanks. --Gallowolf (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gallowolf: Another volunteer has reviewed the email, confirmed that it contains a valid statement of permission, and updated the file description page accordingly. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I uploaded a full permission photo of the owner. I do not understand why you want to delete the picture!

Greetings,

I do not understand at all what you want. The image I uploaded is not copyrighted. It is owned by the National Library of Israel. I have attached a link to the National Library's website, which states very clearly that this image can be published anywhere, and the only restriction is that the words "from the National Library collection" should always be added.

I did add those words, and left the image exactly in that status, "which is a free image, but with each use of the image, the words 'from the National Library Collection' must be added."

So what is the reason for deleting this important image, if all by law?ידך-הגדושה (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear bot

Dear bot, File:Yenidogan koyu giris tabela.jpg and File:Yenidogan koyu giris.jpg are GDFL (please do not ask me what this means, got no idea :) according to the original uploads at TR:WP. I hope you will remove the tags from them files now? --E4024 (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

What is wrong with the license? Antonio Cedillo

Hi, I think there may be an error with this file's deletion request. It has a CC-BY license, as detailed on the link's web page, bottom right hand side. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: At the time AntiCompositeBot tagged the file, it did not have a valid license tag on the file description page, because Template:CC BY 3.0 ES did not exist. I have redirected that page to {{Cc-by-3.0-es}} and marked the file as reviewed. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Speisekarte des Cafés Seeger (um 1860 DaT260B).jpg

Tippfehler korrigiert! --Mewa767 (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

RE:

Your bot is crazy. The image I uploaded is about 125 years old. LOL. Auréola (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Auréola: At the time AntiCompositeBot tagged the file, it did not include a valid license template. All files are required to include a valid copyright tag by COM:LI. I see you have now added a valid copyright license, so the file is no longer at risk of deletion. Thanks, AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Ignored nobots

Your instructions say to tag a file with {{Nobots}} to have a file ignored. Done, though the bot ignored. I have since protected (for a while), though would have preferred to not do so.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Shouldn't that be {{bots|deny=AntiCompositeBot}}? The parsing of {{Bots}} is left to Pywikibot, and I'm no expert on how it works. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

“

How do I stop AntiCompositeBot from tagging my files? To stop AntiCompositeBot from editing a page, you can place {{nobots|deny|AntiCompositeBot}} on the page. In most cases, however, it is better to fix the problem by adding a valid license template to the file. Adding the nobots template won't stop other editors from tagging unlicensed files for deletion or notifying you about those tags.

”

You tell me, I am just following your instructions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I've corrected the instructions. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I don't know what pywikibot's page.botMayEdit() doing. I've created a list of files to skip in the config instead and added File:Testfile.pdf to it, which is working reliably. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

AntiCompositeBot probably made a mistake ?

Hello,

In my opinion, your bot User:AntiCompositeBot made a mistake.

In fact I added the license banner Template:PD-Monaco-official but it is not detected as a valid banner (I created the banner there is maybe an operation that I had to do that I didn't do ?). (we can se the problem here : File:Constitution de Monaco de 1911.pdf)

Could you tell me how to solve this problem ?

Thanks a lot :) — Koreller (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Koreller: My guess would be the problem was that the English-language version of the template didn't exist yet. Autotranslate doesn't handle fallback languages well, and pretty much requires the English version to work well. Everything looks good now though, and I've removed the no license tag. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how to fix it

I uploaded : File:Hardy Trail rest stop.jpg

later, I edited it to add the object location. Apparently I did something wrong in the edit that adversely affected the copyright status. I don't know how to fix this and am afraid that if I try, I will mess it up even more. This is my own photo that I took myself and I intended to release rights so that all can use it. How can I fix this? Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tupelo the typo fixer:  Fixed Special:Diff/554688524 You left a comment un-closed. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much 2603:9000:D50A:60BF:A803:ED34:F96B:F901 11:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

OTRS number added

Hello,

Thanks for halting the deletion process of the following file :

File:Gertrude Girard Montet, Pierre Graber, Monsieur de Béthaz.jpg

Until the OTRS verification has been carried out. Thanks in advance!,

--Flor WMCH (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

HALT DELETION, because OTRS release of rights email sent for Amadou Hott

The photo owner/representative has released the media work thumb under the Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license and wiki has confirmed receipt --> Ticket#: 2021050310007751 MTwikiSN (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@MTwikiSN: I have added the license template to the file. Another volunteer will verify the ticket. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks MTwikiSN (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

File Status

This bot left a notice saying it was missing file info (about licensing), but clearly had the 4.0 Pulblic Domain licesnse. The bot had either removed it, or and ip/user vandalized it. I have the license. Please check the bot. THx, Mausebru (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mausebru: Which file are you referring to? AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Prrinsep Ghat station

The file has been released for general use. I am the author of the photo. --Grentidez (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Grentidez: "Released for general use" is not specific enough, because it is not a valid copyright license. For more information, please see Commons:Licensing. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you want me to say beyond that? I an the author of this photograph: full stop. Well, I have spent enough time on this silly business. --Grentidez (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Icelandic rating drugs.png

I found a proof and here’s this link: https://kvikmyndaskodun.is/aldursmerkingar/ FireDragonValo (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Stop the bot for my photos!

Stop the bot for my photos that upload users with permission. See template {{Mykola Vasylechko}} and Ticket:2021051210010104! --Микола Василечко (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

STOP THIS BOT!!! --Микола Василечко (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Микола Василечко, what files are you referring to? AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Микола Василечко: Nevermind, I see now. When {{Mykola Vasylechko}} and was created and the files were originally uploaded, the template did not include a valid copyright tag. I see that you have now added one, so the files are no longer at risk of deletion. However, the bot was working as intended. Please let me know if you have any questions. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Insigne du CCRAC 3042 Matawinie (1).jpg

Good morning. I have been trying to delete the image, however I did not find how to do so. If you have this power, may you please do it.

I thank you kindly and have a good day. Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ctjj.stevenson:  Done In the future, you can request that files you recently uploaded be deleted by adding {{SD|G7}} to the page. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Stop!

This image Sportplotchadka550.jpg is completely free! This is a photo of the Ministry of Defense of Russia, where the information is placed under the article: © All materials of the Internet portal of the Ministry of Defense of Russia are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license

Please urgently correct the setting for deleting this file!--Oleg Bor (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

replied on my talk page AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Spomen ploča 300. obljetnice smaknuća P. Zrinskog i F. K. Frankopana 1671.JPG

Could you, please, explain why this file containing a memorial plaque without any image (only with text) should be deleted? There is no copyright here, it is in the public domain. --Silverije (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Silverije You need to add a valid copyright tag to the file. There are two potential copyrights here: the plaque and your photo of the plaque. The plaque is covered by {{FoP-Croatia}}, but you need to add a template for the photo itself. Commons:Licensing § Well-known licenses has some suggestions. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber, sorry, but I'm not as good as I should be at technical matters. How exactly can I put a copyright tag to the file? --Silverije (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Charles Victor Ensinck

The File "Stillleben" was uploaded prematurely by error. Nów the File is fully corrected,Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I hate you

I left a correct source on the screenshot, but why do you keep requesting deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hajoon0102 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hajoon0102 Everything on Commons must be specifically licensed so that anyone can use it, for any reason. Most images are not licensed this way, including most screenshots. Images that are not correctly licensed will be deleted. For more information, please see COM:First steps. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Sim3464 USGS Jezero Perseverance exploration ellipse.png

Hi! For unknown reasons ))) I did not put brackets around 'PD-USGov-USGS'. Now brackets are on their place, and I hope its okay now. Thank you, Cherurbino (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cherurbino All looks good to me. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Licensing Image: File:Армения на рубеже Х-ХI веков(Armenia in X-XI A.D.).gif

AntiCompositeBot, the map I downloaded is exactly equal to this File: thumb,same author, same book and a year of publication. I provided all the information and remove deletion timeplate

{{Information
|description={{ru|1=Армения на рубеже Х-ХI веков+легенда}}
|date=1952
|source=http://www.attalus.org/armenian/sebtoc.html
http://www.attalus.org/armenian/er1011.gif
|author=Русский: Еремян С.Т. 
English: Suren Tigrani Yeremian 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suren_Yeremian
|permission=
|other versions=
}}

Culminatio (talk)Culminatio (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Culminatio, all uploads must include a valid copyright tag. You copied the {{Information}} template, but not the copyright tag from the Licensing section. However, I don't think the public domain claim on the existing file is accurate, please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Suren Tigrani Yeremian. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I added a copyright tag — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shark2433086 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Why is the license wrong

Why do you remove the license for furukawa!? Aalji (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Shuntaro Furukawa! You said the license was wrong! Aalji (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

It was CC-NC-ND Aalji (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Aalji Everything on Wikimedia Commons must be freely licensed so that anyone can use it, for any purpose without restriction, as long as they attribute the author and allow other people to do the same when required. Works licensed only under a license that prohibits commercial use or derivative works do not meet this standard, and aren't acceptable on Commons. You can read more about why this is important at Commons:Licensing/Justifications. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

So do I have to get public domain images only if I didn't buy the license? Aalji (talk) 05:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Aalji Works in the public domain, in the source country and the United States, are acceptable. Almost all commercially-licensed works (where you pay money for a license) are not acceptable on Commons, because the license usually only applies to specific uses or to a single license holder and does not permit everyone to use the work for any purpose. Most works you find online, unless specifically marked otherwise, do not meet these requirements and can not be uploaded to Commons. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Wrongful tag of correct licence

All images uploaded by the 13.08.2021 by me - Flattis, are under the same public domain licence situated by The norwegian National Library. https://www.nb.no/lisens/publicdomain I'm currently unsure how to make sure this bot does not tag this for deletion. Please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flattis (talk • contribs) 12:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Flattis All public domain images on Wikimedia Commons must include a copyright tag explaining why the images are in the public domain. I see that you have added {{PD-author}} to the files, but I don't think that's quite correct. That tag is applied when the author or copyright holder willingly gives up their rights to a work that would otherwise be protected by copyright. Instead, these images are likely in the public domain because their copyright protection has expired. In Norway, photographs that aren't considered works of art are only protected for 50 years from creation, and can be tagged with {{PD-Norway50}}. Artistic photographs, like other works, are protected for 70 years after the death of the author or after anonymous publication and can be tagged with {{PD-old-70}}. Note that on Commons public domain files must also be in the public domain in the United States. You can find the right tag to use on COM:HIRTLE. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

How to add license imformation on wikipedia not commons for fair use

How do I do that for fair use photos since it's not allowed on commons? Aalji (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

A rationale is what I mean

Aalji (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Aalji Fair use is not permitted on Commons. Some other wikis, like the English Wikipedia, do allow fair use in limited circumstances. The policy and guidelines for the English Wikipedia are at w:WP:NFC. You can find a summary of the polices of other wikis at m:EDP. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

mazandaran 1814

not problem : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Persia_1814.jpg

I used one of the Wikimedia files

This file has the required permissions

This is his address : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Persia_1814.jpg?uselang=fa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelardashtian (talk • contribs) 22:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kelardashtian I see you have added a license tag to File:Mazandaran 1814.png I have removed the deletion tag. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Erroneous "No license" tag added to new upload

See File:West Anatolian Star Medallion Carpet (cropped).jpg Even worse, your bot tagged this obviously (and properly licensed) PD image for Speedy Deletion! Please fix it promptly, so you're not wasting other's time.--Pete Tillman (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tillman The license was not displayed on the file page because it was missing a closing }. By design, AntiCompositeBot can only detect license tags that are currently displayed on the file description page, as the information in the template is required to comply with the licenses of files that are not in the public domain. I have fixed the templates on File:West Anatolian Star Medallion Carpet.jpg and File:West Anatolian Star Medallion Carpet (cropped).jpg and removed the deletion tags. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Warning caused by a template syntax mistake

About File:L'apparato per spari d'allarme Scartazzi Opessi.pdf, tagged as "No lincence", I found a banal mistake into Book template and I fixed it. Please revert the warning if you like.

The case is difficult, since presently we didn't find into the web any data about birth and death year of the author, nevertheless the publication year (1894) IMHO is sufficiently reassuring about PD status of the edition. --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 14:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Alex brollo You're welcome to remove the bot warnings if you've fixed the issue. AntiCompositeBot tags files when a license tag isn't being displayed on the file description page, even if it's included in the wikitext. This is because licenses that require attribution require specific statements about the license to be included. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)