User talk:Majora/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

File:Cocoon House (Construction - Cocoon spray on ceiling, 1951).jpg and File:Lamolithic House Roof Construction (1948).jpg

Hi Majora. First of all Happy New Year. I hope 2019 is a good one for you and your family.

Would you mind taking a look at File:Cocoon House (Construction - Cocoon spray on ceiling, 1951).jpg and File:Lamolithic House Roof Construction (1948).jpg? They are both sourced to the same website, but I'm not sure why their licenses are different. Moreover, I'm not sure that the website is the originator of the photos even though it states they are PD and the same website is also selling copies of the photos. The uploader has uploaded quite a number of files from that source; so, if these two have any issues, then the others probably do as well.

In addition, File:Revere Quality Institute House Bird's Eye View (Paul Rudolph, Architect).jpg and File:Revere Quality Institute House - Elevation Drawings (Paul Rudolph, Architect).jpg also have a similar license discrepancy even though they too are form the same source. Again, I'm not sure if the Library of Congress is the originator of the photos based upon what they say here. Is the statement "No known restrictions on publication" on the sourced website sufficient for Commons' purposes. It looks like {{Library of Congress-no known copyright restrictions}} is an acceptable license, but only to supplement another PD license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too! The first two are most likely {{PD-US-no notice}}. The Florida Memory site is using the PDM which isn't an acceptable license here unless supplemented with another. But I'm not seeing any reason why those wouldn't be public domain for other reasons. I've changed the licensing on those two. The two Revere images are {{PD-Rudolph}}. Which is fine. The Library of Congress, general, template would have also been acceptable here but the more specific ones are for categorization purposes. --Majora (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Reping. Forgot to sign. --Majora (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. As I mentioned above, there might be other files uploaded by the same person which require a similar tweaking. Would it be safe to assume that any other similar files uploaded from either of those website can be licensed the same way as you did for the other files? For example, File:Cocoon House (Construction - Cocoon spray on roof, 1951).jpg is licensed as {{PD-FLGov}}, but I don't think it is based on COM:PDM. File:Healy Guest House (Cocoon House) - Conceptual Drawing - Paul Rudolph 1949.jpg is also another Library of Congress file which might need tweaking. I don't mind doing this, but just want to try and not make any mistakes.-- Marchjuly (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Request re-evaluation of license reviewing right

I want to request a re-evaluation of T Cells' license reviewing right. Is it okay to post a request on Commons:License review/requests for that? I know it's unusual. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 01:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: The most appropriate forum would be at AN, where it'll be sure to get high-visibility and the community can develop a consensus one way or the other. Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jon Kolbert: works for me. T Cells didn't do anything wrong (like breaking rules), but I personally don't have faith in him as a license reviewer after recent developments. And I suspect I won't be alone. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 01:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Uploading photos on behalf of company

Hi Majora,

Understand that my account was blocked as I've uploaded non-free images multiple times earlier this month. I just want to clarify that I am actually an employee of Charles & Keith (the page of a Singaporean company that I am currently editing + uploading photos for) and all the images that I've uploaded were taken by our company.

That being said, is it possible to let me know the proper way to upload these images so that they won't face deletion?

I've read the licensing and it seems the only way to have these photos successfully uploaded is if I get written permission from the creator (who is also an employee). Do I get permission from the photographer or someone else?

Appreciate if you could advise.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresafeng93 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Teresafeng93: The copyright holder would have to send in the form located at COM:ET to our copyright response team. The copyright holder is generally the photographer unless the copyright has been transferred by contract or by other legal action. Whether or not your are the employee you are not the copyright holder unless you physically took the photo or the photo's copyright was transferred to you. If you have further questions about this please let me know. --Majora (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Majora, thanks for your reply. If the photographer is an employee of the company, and the company owns the copyright, is there a separate form for that? - Teresa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresafeng93 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Teresafeng93: If it is a corporate copyright then the release form must be filled out by a proper representative of the company who has the ability to do so. If you don't know who this is I recommend talking to some legal people. Other than that, the emailed form just has to come from an email address that can be associated with the company. Most companies have @companyname.com address but as long as we can link the address to the company in some way it should be fine. --Majora (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Alexandru_Cecal.jpg

Hi Majora, Last September I have registered a request for the File:Alexandru_Cecal.jpg. On November 13, 2018 you have noticed me to be patient. How patient ? :) Thank you in advance for action. Best regards, --Luzomim (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Lanlan0122

I'm wondering if you can reconsider the block of User:Lanlan0122. We have already secured evidence permission for their recent uploads in ticket:2018121410000239, which arrived on December 14, 2018. As part of the OTRS correspondence, I asked them to upload the files after we obtained the permission — I didn't know the files were uploaded and deleted before. I'm sorry if it caused trouble. Anyway, I believe the copyright issues have been resolved. Do you want to unblock the account? In the meantime, I'd like to proceed undeleting the applicable files and adding permission tags. If there is any remaining problem, please let me know. whym (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah...my mistake, Whym. Of course I'll unblock and if you want help undeleting the image please let me know. Sorry for the trouble. --Majora (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I managed to restore the files that should be restored. I believe we are all set for now. whym (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Greg Haberny.JPG

Hi Majora. What do you think of this file's licensing? It can be seen online here, but I'm not sure if that site just got the photo from Commons because it doesn't attribute it. It looks, however, like it was taken during the same show/exhibition at this one from March 2013 which would be prior its being uploaded to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

It was present on Facebook four months prior to being uploaded here, Marchjuly. I deleted it as a copyvio. --Majora (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

File:All i did was go in ms paint and make this in 12 seconds.png

Hi Majora. Not sure if whether this file and File:I am tired, i should be studying but i made this 4 u.png are appropriate per COM:SCOPE. One of them does seem to be being used on a userpage, but the file names make it seem as if they were uploaded as a joke. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

DR'ed both of their uploads. --Majora (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at these. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

On the PSOE logo

Hello. One of my files, a version of the PSOE logo derived from a free one, has been nominated for deletion, this one. However, a derivative file went through a deletion request process and was kept. Should the same criterion used to keep the former be applied to the latter? It's been a months-long question and I just want to know the answer for the sake of certainty with regard to Commons policy. Thanks for your input! --Fer1997 (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

DR closed. --Majora (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Protection

Could you please semi-protect Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Aruba, Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Nations and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Abkhazia. These three were added after the first lot were created. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Somedaycowboy.jpg

Hi Majora, I drew this picture and supplied a letter to Wikipedia confirming permission to use it on their site. I corresponded with Krishna Chaitanya Velaga on August 14, 2018. Wikipedeia is free to continue using my picture as they see fit. The image is also readily available on the internet and since its an album cover for an article about the album, I believe it could be used under Fair Use as well. In any case, I already supplied a letter giving Wikipedia permission to use the picture. Sincerely JeremyWitten (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Deleted files

Regarding: Commons:Deletion requests/SAIN audio files, I left a message on @Verbcatcher: talk page over a week ago, which remains unanswered, and which reads:

there must be an alternative solution to deletion. Nothing stops us from uploading to individual wikis which use the fair use licence, as all clips are under 30 seconds. Am I correct?

As User:Verbcatcher has not edited for over two months, can you help with this? I understand that files aren't actually deleted, so in theory it should be possible to place on cywiki? Many thanks! I also ping - @Jason.nlw, Michael Bednarek, and AlwynapHuw: Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Llywelyn2000: I don't think you can import material that has been deleted without first undeleting them. And doing that for thousands of files would be impracticable when they can just be uploaded locally to begin with. Also cy:Special:Import is restricted to local admins. I'd be happy to facilitate individual undeletions to move them over to a project where they would be acceptable under fair use but doing that for all of them would be an enormous undertaking when you can just get the files again from the SAIN website. --Majora (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for your quick response. Am I right in saying that enwiki could also upload? If that's the case then it might be worth doing. I'm an admin and a Beaurocrat on cywiki, so no problems. A lot of work went into this by Jason / National Library, with categories etc. You say that undeleting would be a lot of work... could I help here? I think that a batch delete can also be batch undeleted? Or is it not as simple? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Llywelyn2000: , sorry for my lack of response. I have not been active here for a few months. I am not sure what you are proposing. The 30-second 'rule' for fair use is only a guideline, and is not the only test that needs to be satisfied for fair use.

Majora, as you noted, I spent time analysing some of the files and identified several that could be saved. I stopped that work because I did not receive any feedback, despite posting at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. I did not want to do several weeks work on this only to have all the files deleted by an administrator who did not accept my analysis. However, I continued working on the files, and may have identified more that can be saved. If so I will request undeletion. Is there any way that I can access the files for the purpose of checking their copyright? Presumably I could do this if I became an administrator, but I am reluctant to take on the responsibilities expected of them. It would be difficult to find the clips on the Sain website based on the deleted file names on Commons. Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher: Thanks for your hard work on this Verbcatcher. the files have been deleted from Commons, but my suggestion is that they could actually be placed under a Fair Use licence on both enwiki and cywiki, as they are all under 30 seconds. I'm not blaming anyone for this in any way. If Majora could undelete, then we could filter manually the remaining files. Those left could then be uploaded to both en and cy Wikipedia space. I hope this makes sense to you! Thanks and best regards... Llywelyn2000 (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher and Llywelyn2000: I honestly don't know what to tell you. Can I undelete the files so you can check them? Technically, yes. But to do so would take days, probably weeks. I'm not aware of a mass undelete script that would make that any easier. That is not to say that there isn't one but I'm not aware of one. There is also the fact that there are confirmed copyright violations within those files so to undelete those just to have another person check them at a later date would not be appropriate at all. This was always going to be a problem with creating a DR that contained nearly 4,000 files. If you want specific ones undeleted I would be happy to do so but to do all of them is just not possible unless that is the only thing I was doing for a while (also please remember that I have a day job outside Wikimedia). As for whether or not they can be uploaded under fair use on other projects that would require that they meet those projects' fair use rationale requirements. I'm relatively familiar with enwiki's requirements but not cywiki. Like I said, I would be happy to undelete specific files if you want but to do all of them is just not feasible. --Majora (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jason.nlw: do you still have a copy of the files? I think, for now, we can forget about checking individual files. Getting the batch on cywiki and enwiki should be our priority, in my opinion. Majora - don't go to any further trouble, you have other important things, and a life! But if you can ask somewhere if there is a mass undelete tool, I would be grateful. Thanks and best regards. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand from Jason that there isn't a copy of these files, other than what was deleted from Commons.

Any assistance on this would be appreciated eg is there a mass-undelete tool? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

This conversation continues here.

Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrol removed

Your message "autopatroller (redundant to patroller). Accidentally granted during extended uploader merging.". Hrm, do I understand this correctly, that I am still Patroller, and because of that, I do not need Auto-Patroller? Or does it mean "that I have no patrol rights at all anymore? I am not entirely sure about how to interpret the message. And no, I did not yet check all my rights. Regards, --Janwikifoto (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Janwikifoto: Oh no you are still a patroller. The patroller right is really just an extension of the autopatroller right. It contains all the same abilities with the added ability to patrol other's edits. When you become a patroller back in early 2018, your autopatroller flag was actually removed (you can see this in your user rights history). What happened this time was that during the discontinuation of the extended uploader group, the devs ran a script to merge the group into autopatroller. This had the unintended side effect of regranting you the redundant autopatroller right. I just remedied that by reremoving it. Your rights prior to the merge yesterday should be exactly the same but if you encounter anything odd please let me know. --Majora's Incarnation (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Autopatroller and patroller

Hi Majora, I see you've removed my autopatroller rights citing "redundant to patroller). Accidentally granted during extended uploader merging.)" - I'm not sure if you're aware but I was granted autopatroller rights back in 2016 long before extended uploader was created[[1]] so I don't if this should've been removed?

The second question I have is Is the only difference between Autopatroller and patroller is that with patroller rights I can mark edits as patrolled but all of my edits, uploads etc are still marked as autopatrolled automatically ?, so basically other than me being able to mark edits as patrolled there's no other difference between them both ?,

Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Davey2010: According to Special:ListGroupRights, patroller contains both (autopatrol) and (patrol), which means that your own edits are automatically patrolled and you can patrol the edits of others. Both groups contain (upload_by_url) which was previously only in extended uploader. Patroller also allows you to see more detail in AbuseFilter logs. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi AntiCompositeNumber, Ah brilliant thank you, I wasn't sure if it was something to worry about but obviously not :), Many thanks for your help, –Davey2010^Talk 13:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Jonathan Knight.jpg

Hi Majora. I'm wondering what you think about this file's licensing. It has EXIF data, but it can also be seen online here which seems to be claiming authorship/ownership over it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Well...the one we have here is a much better quality than the one on that source. The one here also shows some sort of watermark to it. It looks like a professional photo though so we would probably need proof that the photographer authorized release. I went ahead and tagged it no permission. --Majora (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this. I did notice the watermark which was one of the reasons I wasn't so sure whether the website version wasn't a cropped version of the original. The apparent claim of authorship made on the website, however, also made things a little unclear. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-gcr.svg

I had fixed a lot of SVG errors, and its metadata included the information that it was created in Inkscape. I don't understand how the entire data was been reverted if the file which I had edited was kept.
acagastya 02:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, acagastya. All I did was take the file upload and history from your upload and merged it with the [[::File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-gcr.svg]]. I didn't leave anything out. Everything transferred over with the merge. What is missing? --Majora (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The file which I had created mentioned it was created using Inkscape. And before pinging you on ANB, I had fixed several SVG errors. Somehow that is not visible in the latest version. Even the file description is modified. I don't mind fixing it, but why did that happen?
acagastya 09:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

As it turns out, you copied the old revision of file description in the last edit, which I have updated now.
acagastya 12:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Acagastya: Oh I see what happened. When a history merge is done all the edits are sorted by what date and time they were done on their individual pages. When you actually perform the merge the file page still takes whatever was the most recent version by time stamp. So while the updated image file was the most recent file, the file description still showed the old version because the text of the old version was the most recent revision of that. It is a tad confusing when you are dealing with uploads since technically the file itself and the text on the page are separate entities. In any case, I'm glad it is all fixed now. --Majora (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that to me. As I always say: machines do not have human emotions. So humans need to be mindful about nuances in various scenarios. I hope I have this in mind from now on!
acagastya 03:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Questions

Hi there. Some people do not like décolleté. Therefore they propose speedy deletion. If they cannot get what they want through deletion, they crop, again and again. Do we censure Commons? If not, does this attitude require some sort of admin action or should I just shut up and ask for a split again? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@E4024: I just reverted and deleted the overwrite. I'm not going to split the file again and merge it. I also left them a warning on their talk page. If they do that again I will block them for continuing to overwrite files against guidelines. The amount of work it is to actually split a file page just to have them overwrite it again is simply not acceptable. --Majora (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Roberto McCausland Dieppa.jpg

Hi Majora. Just wondering what you think about this photo? It doesn't seem to be of the type of quality you'd expect from a digital camera photo, but perhaps that might be due to the fact that it appears to have been zoomed in quite a bit. It does look more like a photo of a photo or a scan of some kind, than an actually photo itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sent to DR, Marchjuly. --Majora (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank your for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Outland Pix and GardenM activity

Heads-up that GardenM (talk · contribs) is in the process of uploading versions of files that were previously deleted per your deletion request, after previous uploader Outland Pix (talk · contribs) was blocked for two weeks for copyvios. Funcrunch (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, Funcrunch. I've deleted the recently uploaded images by GardenM and left them a note about reuploading deleted content. I'll keep an eye on them. --Majora (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Majora.

As you know, today I uploaded a few images. I believe you deleted them for copyright violations. The thing is, I am absolutely certain these images are not violations as I am the original owner of these images and made them available to the public domain years ago. In fact, they were on Wikipedia for a very long time without issue and then suddenly disappeared (which is why I uploaded them today when I noticed they were gone from pages that use them). That seems to have caused concern. How can I restore this image the proper way without causing concern? I am sure these images are not violations. Thanks for any guidance you can provide. I just want to follow the proper process. (GardenM) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GardenM (talk • contribs) 00:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I simply don't believe you. Seeing as Outland Pix also said they were theirs. Unless of course you are saying you are them which would mean you are abusing multiple accounts. You can deal with OTRS if you want to try to confirm that you are the copyright holder for these images. Do not upload them again. --Majora (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Majora. I am not trying to get around any policies. And I am certainly not trying to use copyrighted materials. I am just trying to restore personal images (bio headshots) that were present on wikipedia for a long time and then suddenly disappeared. I will follow the OTRS process you suggest, if that's the proper channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GardenM (talk • contribs) 01:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Majora. I think have a simple solution. I will just upload different photographs taken later at the same event on the same camera. I am letting you know because although they are slightly similar, these are completely different images. They have never been uploaded anywhere before, so there can be no question about ownership and no confusion over them already being in the public domain. Hopefully these new uploads don't cause you any concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GardenM (talk • contribs) 03:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Coccoc Windows screen.png

File:Coccoc Windows screen.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Thienhau2003 (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Rangerette Director - Dana Blair.jpg and File:Rangerette Assistant Director - Shelley Wayne.jpg

Hi Majora. I'm wondering what you think about these two files' licensing. They were uploaded by the same person and apparently come from the same source. I'm not sure whether its really a good idea for the contact information to be included on the files' page, but that might not be such a big deal. What seems to be the problem, however, is that the uploader/copyright holder is expecting people to contect them to verify the files' licensing, when it would be much better for copyright holder to simply email OTRS or use the Interactive Release Generator. Are these OK as licensed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The same uploader did send email OTRS for File:Rangerette Logo.svg. Could that ticket also possibly cover these two files as well? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: ticket:2018032510000075 is limited solely to the logo. I do agree that the permission statement there is problematic. The situation is made more complex because an external contractor created the image and we don't know the specifics of the contract or license. The statement in the PD tag sounds suspiciously like an exclusive license or a Wikipedia-only license. Both of those would not be acceptable, and I suggest you leave the uploader a talk page message or tag the images no permission. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber: Thanks for the input. I thought the same about the PD tag; it seemed that the statement added to license was trying to restrict use to only Wikipedia or only for certain uses even though that can't really be done for PD or for Commons. My interactions with this editor over on English Wikipedia about other matters (conflict-of-interest, non-free content use, etc.), however, have gotten a bit contentious; so, I'm a bit concerned that my tagging these with npd might only further exacerbate the situation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I've tagged the images. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you AntiCompositeNumber. The uploader, however, has requested they be deleted on his user talk. I guess they can be DR'd in that case, but not sure if it will be faster than simply waiting for the files to be speedily deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Undeletion / License statement correction request

Greetings, I recently discovered that a photo I uploaded a very long time ago has been deleted and I would humbly request you undelete it, so that the license statement can be modified to comply with the most recent policies. At the time (nearly ten years ago) and for quite some time thereafter, it appears to have been within the parameters, but perhaps the policies have changed, or there has been a misunderstanding. It might have been assumed that the file was downloaded from the internet, as the internet has grown by leaps and bounds over ten years, and a lot of people download files and repost them. This file originated with me, and thus I would be glad to adjust the license statement ( per the notice question on this page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:FredCraneCirca1960s.png ). The page simply states, "said who?" and I am answering that presently. The photo was a gift from my father and he was the copyright owner until his death. I chose this file to release as a gift for the public benefit in memory of my father and I will be glad to modify the license as needed. I can use a template page from others that contain legitimate current license statements, or if you have a preferred template for this purpose, please direct me toward a link. Many Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.87.36.128 (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, so there is a couple of things with your request. First, the image was uploaded here by Archaeopterickles with the description Fred Crane publicity circa 1960s photo from the family collection released for nonprofit and fair use and maintained on the IMDB Internet Movie Database since 2007. Which means that it was present on IMDB well before it was ever uploaded here. It was also a very low resolution file which lends credence to the idea that it was transferred from another source. Do you have the original? Not the version that was downloaded off of IMDB? Is there any proof that you are who you say you are? Our copyright response team generally handles such verification. Please take a moment to fill out the form located at COM:ET#Email message template for release of rights to a file and send it into them at photosubmissionwikimedia.org. They can walk you through some steps on how to best verify who you are. Once they give the go ahead I can undelete the image. Thank you for your understanding. --Majora (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

- Thank you for your response and kind consideration. Indeed I was pondering the possibilities to prove I am the owner and that seems like one of the good options :) I would have to see if I could locate a higher resolution one on an old (probably XP) computer or just locate the original and scan that again, or perhaps also take a photo showing the series of pictures from the photo session from which this one originated.
I did also upload it to IMDB and am one of the maintainers of his data there as well, so that may explain why it was there before Wikipedia (it's been so long ago). And Archaeopterickles was one of my old interim login names, but when Wikipedia invoked the Global Username policy, my name was usurped because I did not act quickly to preserve it. If you Google "Archeopterickles" you will see it leads to " https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:JonathanFrakes08.png " which shows my original userped username "Oiseau" along with the other links to the FredCrane photo.
Perhaps this will be enough to prove my case (gosh I hope so), and I will follow the link you gave me as well to file the information. Any further help or advice would be appreciated.
I truly hope you never have to go through this, having to re-establish credence for a tribute to a lost loved one. Perhaps this time will be the last time it is needed. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.87.36.128 (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Just touching base to let you know I filed at the link you pointed out, and am hopefully in the queue. Things may take a little while when it's the world's largest encyclopedia I guess :) I did locate my original file, so if there's any way you know of to expedite things, please do let me know. Thanks much! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.87.36.128 (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

You should have gotten a response back with a ticket number. What is it? I'll take a look at it when I have time. --Majora (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello! After waiting a bit, I re-read your information here and realized I had sent the information and photo to the wrong Wikimedia email address (my apologies). I now am sending the information to the email address you suggested, and I will post the ticket number as soon as I hear back from them, thanks. 76.87.36.128 06:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Greetings again.. I know you've been probably been busy and I hate to intrude, but in just a couple days my Dad would have celebrated his 100th birthday, and I wondered if it couldn't hurt to ask if it might be possible to expedite a bit toward having his photo resolved again on the Wiki page, so the world could see him again on his 100th birthday.. thanks for listening, -dc 76.87.36.128 08:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Life moves in mysterious ways ^_^ After writing the above note, I did receive a very nice email from the submissions department you had told me to contact, and so here's the ticket # 2019030810002166 . Hoping all looks well, and thanks again! 76.87.36.128 08:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

All restored. --Majora (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Much Obliged, and Best Wishes! 76.87.36.128 06:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Note

Apologies if I chose my wording poorly in a way that could be construed as commentary on you personally. That was not my intention. GMG^talk 17:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

License verification

Hi Majora. Would you mind taking a look at COM:VPC#File:Schlakman President Logo.jpg may have wrong license and User talk:Chiyako92#File:Ian Schlakman.jpg? Do you think these two files can be kept as licensed or would it be better to have them verified by OTRS?

In a separate matter, the licenses of File:Rita Ora Tezenis 2.png and File:Rita Ora VMA 2018.jpg (and some other similar VIMEO files) have been verified by the same editor who verified "File:Ian Schlakman.jpg", but I'm not seeing anything suggesting that any of these files have been released as licensed on their source pages. It's quite possible that I just am looking in the wrong place, but the only mention of copyright at all on the pages is at the very bottom where it says "© 2019 Vimeo, Inc. All rights reserved". "File:Rita Ora VMA 2018.jpg" is even described on its source page as "Shot and edited for GETTY IMAGES"; this might not mean anything, but Getty does seem to be associated with the commercial use of images. I did check the main account page of the person who posted the image, but there is also no mention of any {{Cc-by-3.0}} there. Once again, I cold just be looking in the wrong place. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Sorry it took a little bit to respond. As for File:Schlakman President Logo.jpg, it wouldn't hurt to have OTRS confirmation but my personal opinion on the matter is that it is probably ok the way it is. It pretty explicitly says that, "All of this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License". The Terms and Conditions page showing an "All Rights Reserved" type license doesn't discount the CC license that is listed in the footer in my mind. Again, nothing wrong with getting OTRS confirmation though.

For File:Rita Ora Tezenis 2.png if you click on the "More" link under the title on the source you can see the license for the video. I haven't really looked into it deeply though. So while the license is correct per the source if you think there are DW issues that is a different matter entirely. --Majora (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at these. I didn't even think about there being a DW issue; so, I'll take another peek at the video. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Instagram app screenshot deleted

Good afternoon, you deleted my photo. Please bring it back as everything you see there is my own work. File:Instagram app screenshot.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Instagram_app_screenshot.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 Thank you! Mickeysamuni (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mickeysamuni: Collages like that require individual links to all parts that show that every image is under an acceptable license. The file description on that page did not include that. Please provide links to every image showing an acceptable license. --Majora (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

So you are saying I basically need to donate all the photos in the collage to Wikipedia in separate files? Mickeysamuni (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mickeysamuni: I asked for links and links to the images on Instagram would be fine. Captions on each image stating what license each one is under would be preferable. --Majora (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I do not wish to give permission to each of the photos Mickeysamuni (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mickeysamuni: I'm sorry but you can use this photo is not good enough for our purposes. You must allow anyone, including outside reusers, to use or modify the image at any time and for any purpose including commercial use. This requires an actual license statement, such as Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0, or something similar. Please see COM:L#Well-known licenses for a list of common licenses and pick one. In addition, we cannot take your word that you are who you say you are since this is the Internet and unfortunately people lie (not saying that you are it is just we can't take that risk). So either you have to physically add such a licensing statement on the images in question or you can go through COM:OTRS to confirm you are who you say you are. If you wish to go to later route please let me know and I can give you the OTRS instructions. I understand that this is a pain but it is just what we have to do and I hope that you can understand that. --Majora (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for being so nice and informative about this. I've been in Wikipedia for 7 years and I feel like it turned into a war zone. While I have no problem contributing the images as a collage, I do not wish to give the same permission to each one of my photos separately (these are 15 professional photos). If you wish, I can add the Commons 4 but I'll delete it from the photos tomorrow morning.Mickeysamuni (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I understand, Mickeysamuni. The only other thing I can think of is for you to do an overarching statement on your main profile page. I don't use Instagram so I'm not sure if you can do that but if the stuff at the top of https://www.instagram.com/4seasonsny/ is directly editable you can always do something like, "All images on this page are placed under the <insert acceptable license here>". That would also work but the statement would have to stay there for verification purposes. --Majora (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Done https://www.instagram.com/4seasonsny/?hl=en Mickeysamuni (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, Mickeysamuni but you have to specific a license version number. Your original upload claimed CC-BY-SA-4.0 which stands for the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license. What that means is that anyone can use it and modify it provided that they attribute you and that any modifications be released under a similar license. If you agree to those terms please state the full license name or its acronym on that page. I can restore the image here once that is done. Again, I am sorry for being so specific with the requirements and I do appreciate your understanding. --Majora (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry. I thought about it and I don't want to give permission for each one of the photos. You can only use the collage. Mickeysamuni (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I understand your decision. Unfortunately, without doing one of the above I can't undelete the collage. I am sorry. --Majora (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Kirmestaufe

Thanks!--StagiaireMGIMO (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1975, MiNr 2029.jpg

There is a template like "Free at 20xx" Please paste it. Sorry for my poor english. --Nightflyer (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nightflyer: I would if I knew when it would be. Who created the stamp? Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Stamps copyright is 70 years after the death of the author. --Majora (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Gerhard Wilhelm August Stauf (* 28. Dezember 1924 in Burg (bei Magdeburg); † 25. April 1996 in Leipzig) --Nightflyer (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done [2] --Majora (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Peter Petroff

You can delete pics of Nasa of a dead ingenier? No one is going to claim image rights. It is absurd and idiotic and imbecile what you have done. delete delete delete , in this case is not correct. --Reterteed (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Copyright, generally, lasts 70 years after the copyright holder's death. The copyright holder is generally the photographer. The person in the photo being dead is irrelevant I'm afraid. Copyright is a complex topic, Reterteed, with a lot of variables. Also, please be civil. Continued personal attacks against other editors will result in the revocation of your editing privileges. --Majora (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello again

I liked the way you talk to me. Can you tell me how to find interesting articles to take to Spanish wikipedia? I want to know you more and more too in real life. --Reterteed (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawn DRs?

Hi Majora. Would you mind taking a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:2016-W Mercury dime gold.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:2016-W Standing Liberty quarter gold.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:2016-W Walking Liberty half dollar gold.jpg? The DRs appear to have been started by the uploader of the files, who then appears to have changed his mind a few days later here, here and here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Closed. --Majora (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at these. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "Mike Licht" -otrs

As COM:PCP has been shown, please provide the public domain source of the six remaining files, none are simple, otherwise they'd need deleting. Thanks.--BevinKacon (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justyna_Wojtowicz

Hello There, I put the photo here becauce Justyna Wojtowicz ask me to. I got the photo from Her. Really sorry if I did something wrong. Please, help me with that instead simply delete my work again.

Misiu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misiu667 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Вопрос

Здравствуйте. У меня к вам вопрос. Как я могу быть кандидатом на автопатрул ? Эту правку почему отменили ? Можете помочь ? CalalC99 ^(talк) 15:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@CalalC99: I don't speak Russian so I'm sorry if this doesn't come across correctly. I did not remove that section. I removed one of your two requests for the "confirmed" right which would be redundant since you are already autoconfirmed. As for this request, you again, did not follow the instructions. You did not give a reason. This is step #3 in the instructions on the top. Failure to follow instructions is not a good way to get granted additional rights. While I wouldn't call it vandalism as Jeff G. did I also would have had a lot of reservations granting you that right considering the failure to follow instructions and the relative recent licensing issues addressed on your talk page. --Majora (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@CalalC99: Sorry, I saw it as yet another unreasoned request from you; I didn't notice it was in a different section.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 17:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Flag of Israel.svg

You had previously denied that someone requesting a change to a optimized file in the talk. So once again I made a file change request and uploaded the file as a new file. I think it would not be too bad to change it, so I made a request again. Please review it again and consider whether you should consider changing the file. Thank you. --Tcfc2349 (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

And request denied, again. You can't really ask the same thing for the same reason and expect to get anything different than the same answer. --Majora (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Flickr

Hi, I have got a question. Are images in Flickr that are tagged as "Commercial use and mods allowed" allowed to be uploaded to here? Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Yep. Both commercial use and derivatives must be allowed in order to be uploaded here. COM:FLICKR has a nice graphic at the top that has the icons to look for. Please keep in mind though that since flickr allows anyone to upload images it is possible that the account you are uploading from stole the images themselves. If it looks too good to be true it might be. If you ever want a second opinion on an image please let me know. Or ask at COM:VP/C. --Majora (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Reset deleted image

Hey! Please restore this image: File: Susanne Delastacia 2018 that was in this article. For some unreasonable reason, it has been deleted WITHOUT that I, as the photographer, has been asked, which is a practice on the WP and Commons. On November 16, 2018, I was on a prize ceremony at the Stockholm Film Festival. I have 612 pictures in my archive from that evening. Some of them are uploaded here. One of those I photographed was Susanne Delastacia. Please re-create the image and notify why the deletion was done and why I was not notified. /Best regards FrankieF (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

FrankieF That image was not uploaded by you. It was uploaded by an account named, Susanne Delastacia who claimed it as their own work. All of which didn't match with what was stated on the actual file information page, Pressfoto 2018 Fotograf: Ulla Andesong. There was no evidence of permission there so it was deleted. You not being notified was due to the fact that you didn't upload it. There really is nothing I can do as there still is no proof that you are the copyright holder of this particular image. You can try contacting COM:OTRS to see if you can provide them proof but as of right now my hands are tied. Sorry. --Majora (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Moving files to Commons

Hi, can you help me moving this file to Commons, please, I don't really know what to do for ??? PouLagwiyann (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@PouLagwiyann: It appears to already be on Commons. See File:Toulou.jpg --Majora (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Jargon

>"The removal of attribution can be done post DR with VFC."
Hello Majora. In reference to your recent reply at the Village Pump above, do you expect someone who calls themselves a "complete neophyte to Wikimedia Commons" who explicitly said "I don't know how to use any of the code/jargon" to understand your sentence above? You could at least provide them with some links. Just my 2 cents :) Kaldari (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

They clearly already know what a DR is. Acronym or not, they filed several. And I was expecting to do the removal myself and have listed it on my to do list so the point is moot. But thanks for your two cents. --Majora (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Changing a translatable page

Please do not enumerate translation units manually as you did here. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't – it's very easy to make a mistake. Just leave it to the Translate Extension as mentioned on mw:Help:Extension:Translate/Page translation example#Step 4: Making changes. --jdx ^Re: 10:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, Jdx. I had always run the translation software after the fact to ensure that it worked properly and I had never seen it screw up so I just continued to do it that way. I will make sure I do it the other way in the future. Thank you for pointing that out to me. --Majora (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

On deleting AXM LOGO in the AXM FUTSAL MANADO PAGE

I am an authorized media crew of AXM FUTSAL MANADO, uploading the image file was one of my programme in my crew. Turning down the file and cant be use again because of originality is such a disgrace in the wikipedia world. Please be more responsible on the act of your on turning down me as the user of that image. Aepangemanan (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

You should read the giant notice at the top of this page. We don't take people's word for it. You listed it was your "own work" which is clearly not true. You being "authorized" does not make it your own work. In any case, we have processes for such things. Specifically our volunteer copyright response team. Which will allow you to prove that you are who you say you are, release the image under a proper license, and get it restored. --Majora (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

template edit help

Hi Majora, can you revert this edit? Taking the CU page as a reference, I believe that the edit causes

[[COM:CHECK, COM:RFCU, COM:SOCK]]

Special:Diff/357958984

to appear instead of

COM:CHECK, COM:RFCU, COM:SOCK

Special:Diff/357958976

大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 09:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@大诺史: I'm not quite sure why that would have to be reversed when the template's documentation shows the proper use of it. The way that one was done is not how the documentation says to do it. It seems like most of the pages that are using it are doing it properly. There should be a way to fix the others. --Majora (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done All fixed. Only 167 pages needed to be changed out of the thousands that used it. Note, translated pages should be updated by FuzzyBot so those might take a little bit. I'll rerun the search in a day or two just to make sure everything is updated properly. --Majora (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy deletion

Hi. I'm OTRS agent. I've working on ticket:2019071410000532 about this. I've verified the identity of the user and he's reliable. Regards. --Ganí medes 23:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Mkay. This is going to take a while to go through all 1,000+ images but I added them all to a holding area (Category:Pending removals to be checked) for the time being while I slowly go through them. --Majora (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Category

Why did you do this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: A large scale BLP related deletion request was received at the village pump last month. The person in the original photos is a private individual and when they uploaded their photos of celebrities to Flickr they were not aware that their face would be plastered all over the Internet. They are fine with their photos being used here provided their image is removed. Per our guideline on the matter and by courtesy it was agreed that if they can confirm who they are we can go ahead and start removing it. The amount of photos from their flickr account that was uploaded here is over 1,000 so it was easier to just add the category to every photo of theirs and then go through them one at a time. While it might take me a while to get through all of them the category listing is temporary and the easiest way I could think of to make sure I'm not missing any. --Majora (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks kindly. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

LicenseReview.js suggestion: warn against self-review?

Hi Majora, I had a suggestion for your excellent LicenseReview.js script. I recently got myself in a bit of trouble because I somehow hadn't realized or had forgotten that image reviewers are not supposed to review their own images. Perhaps it could be helpful to pop up a little "are you sure?" message if someone tries to review their own upload, to help prevent future reviewers from making the same mistake I made. This would be a pretty simple change; I'm imagining tweaking the LicenseReview_P function to look something like this:

// LRP - License review passed
LicenseReview_P: function () {
    var query = 
	{   action: 'query'
		,format: 'json'
		,prop: 'revisions'
		,rvprop: 'user'
		,rvdir: 'newer'
		,rvlimit: 1
		,titles: conf.wgPageName.replace(/_/g, ' ')
	};
	$.getJSON(mw.util.wikiScript('api'), query, function(result) {
        if (userName != result.query.pages.shift() || window.confirm("Reviews made by image reviewers on their own uploads are considered invalid. Are you sure you want to proceed?")) {
            // the rest of the function goes here...
        }
    });
},

That's really rough code and I haven't even tested it, but hopefully it gives you an idea of what I'm going for. What do you think of adding something like this? –IagoQnsi (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@IagoQnsi: Would you rather it warn or just refuse to complete the action entirely? I'll have to run a few tests to make sure it is working appropriately but it shouldn't be that hard to do. I should be able to focus on this sometime next week. --Majora (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Stupid Questions

Why can't I reply to a message to me? Is there any simplified video on how to edit Wikipedia??

Thank you everyone

Butterfly_Rises — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butterfly Rises (talk • contribs) 18:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Butterfly Rises: I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you say that you cannot reply to a message to you. Your edit on this page was your first edit on Commons. If you are looking for a tutorial please see w:Wikipedia:Tutorial. Please also note that Commons, the site you are on now, if different from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia. Commons is the central repository for free media. If you have any questions about Commons please let me know. --Majora (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

no copyright isu on that logo

helo no copyright on the ultras malaya logo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asklinux (talk • contribs) 13:51, 31 July 2019‎ (UTC)

@Asklinux: If you are talking about File:Ultras malaya.jpg please provide proof that the owner of the copyright, which is generally the creator, has released it under the license you stated. All logos automatically gain copyright unless they do not meet the threshold of originality. That logo most definitely is copyrighted. --Majora (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

no copyright on Club Aldosivi logo

Message in Spanish: En reiteradas ocaciones ustedes, como moderador de Wikipedia, le dio de baja al escudo oficial de Aldosivi (propuesto por el Club). Lo que esto genera es que en varios medios de comunicación y redes sociales se difundan escudos que no tienen nada que ver con nuestra historia. El requisito para subir una imagen es que no tenga derechos de autor, pues este mismo esta de acuerdo con que se suba a su página (sino puede comunicarse con las redes oficiales del Club). Prosigo a subir el escudo, esta vez dando a entender que yo no soy el autor del mismo, sino el diseñador gráfico de turno en la Institución que está 100% de acuerdo, junto a las autoridades de la organización, con que este este subido y difundido por Internet gracias a Wikipedia.

Message in English (with google translator): On repeated occasions you, as Wikipedia moderator, dropped the official Aldosivi shield (proposed by the Club). What this generates is that various media and social networks spread shields that have nothing to do with our history. The requirement to upload an image is that it is not copyrighted, as it agrees to upload it to your page (but you can contact the official networks of the Club). I continue to raise the shield, this time implying that I am not the author of it, but the graphic designer on duty at the Institution who agrees 100%, together with the authorities of the organization, with which this is uploaded and spread on the Internet thanks to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andycardozo24 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 31 July 2019‎ (UTC)

And now you are blocked for continuing to upload the same copyright violation over and over again. --Majora (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Deleted files

Hello Majora,

Thanks for reviewing VSDC Free Video Editor page. The author of all deleted images and a logo is our team; these files are published on our website so that anyone can use them. Could you please tell me, what should I do so that our page can be illustrated for Wikipedia readers? We can easily make new screenshots, if the previous ones don't meet your requirements.

Look forward to hearing from you. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ana535 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 1 August 2019‎ (UTC)

@Ana535: A few things here. In order to be uploaded here it must be under a license that allows anyone to use or modify the image, at any time, and for any purpose (including commercial reuse). If you want to allow this then please put the images in question on a page on your website with a specific line that states "The images on this page are under <insert acceptable license here>" For a list of acceptable licenses please see COM:L. Most people use the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license. Right now the website in question says "Copying any materials from this site allowed only with written consent of Site Administration" at the bottom.

Please note, and this is important, you cannot put images you do not own the copyright to under any other license. This may seem obvious but it is worth saying because one of the files I deleted, specifically File:Color correction VSDC.jpg, had another image very clearly displayed in the editing window. This is called a derivative work and you cannot place that image under any other license at all unless you also own the copyright to the image within the image (which you would also have to show). Please remember, you can only release images to be uploaded here if you own the copyright to everything within that image.

As we don't take people's word for it you have two options here. Either put the images on a page on the official website with the line as stated in the first paragraph. Or, use our copyright response team to verify your identity and release the photos that way. The first way is easier and faster and if possible I recommend doing that. If you have any questions please let me know. --Majora (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

File:SportPesa Racing Point logo.png

Hi Majora, this file is clearly below TOO. Please restore it. Or at least let me transfer it to German Wikipedia. Chaddy (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Chaddy: It most certainly is not below the United Kingdom's threshold of originality which is "sweat of the brow". Let me know when you are available to transfer it and I'll temporarily undelete it. --Majora (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Could you send it to me via e-mail? Then we don't have to be online at the same time. Chaddy (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Chaddy: I just went ahead and undeleted it so you can transfer it. Let me know when you are finished. Thanks. --Majora (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I have saved it on my computer now. Chaddy (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Parliament of Turkey 2018 Current seat position (right-left spectrum).svg

Hi

Excuse me. What is the solution now? --Panam2014 (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Panam2014: The solution right now is patience. Not much I can do until the developers debug the backend processes that are holding up the undeletion. You can follow along with the bug request at phab:T229606 --Majora (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Because of software limitation there are no solution for split? --Panam2014 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Flag of Laos.svg

Ciao Majora,

I noticed you an inappropriate tag related "Communist symbol" in flag of Laos because (I quote verbatim): "...It is one of the two flags of a currently communist country (the other being Cuba) that does not use any communist symbolism and the only current communist country that does not use a five-pointed star in its flag as an emblem." (extracted from article en:Flag of Laos).

The tag "Communist symbol" is related to (I quote verbatim the tag description): "...Imagery covered may include the hammer and sickleen, red star, emblems/insignias, flags or images of leaders." (see bottom of the tag description). >>> There are not this symbols in the flag of Laos.

Please, it is possible delete this wrong tag in the file description page?

Thank you and ciao.

(User talk:FDRMRZUSA) 22:25, 08 August 2019 (UTC+1)

w:Laos is a Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic so that template seems appropriate as it is a symbol that represents communism, socialism, or similar governmental structures. The part of the template you quoted explictly uses the word may for a reason. It allows for a far greater range of applicable examples. I didn't add it of my own volition anyways. I was just fulfilling an edit request. --Majora (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Questionable sock request

Greetings Majora, would you kindly take a look at this request on my Talk page pertaining to uploads from a globally-blocked sock?  JGHowes  ^talk 20:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@JGHowes: Yeah...those images were uploaded by a sock of Sol-lol. One of the more prolific LTAs we have. For them to ask about them as one of their first edits pretty much confirms their connection. Sol-lol isn't generally known for their subtlety. I blocked the account. --Majora (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleting my user page

Hi, I want to delete my user page. Could you or any admin who watches your talk page delete it please. I have made a mess. I am so sorry. I don't know how to delete it. Thank you.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

How's this progressing?

Hi, appreciate the effort. How is this going? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaunchStevenson (talk • contribs) 17:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

About halfway done. --Majora (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, cool! It's still only you doing all this? Wow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaunchStevenson (talk • contribs) 03:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Is it OK to ...?

Hello @Majora: ,

I understand you are the one who deleted the GIGN logo (File:Emblème du Groupe d'intervention de la Gendarmerie nationale.svg) from the infobox in the article GIGN.

Now, would it be OK to use, as a substitute, a close-up taken, by example, from the following picture that I posted some time ago : File:GIGN40 Domenjod 270918.jpg (the photo is actually used in the article) ?

So that there is no confusion, I plan, if this is OK, to use a real close-up showing only the logo displayed on the vehicle door. Is that OK?

I am also thinking of using a close-up of the badge taken from a photo of a real GIGN operator. I suppose this is OK.

Thank you in advance for your answer & best regards

--Domenjod (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

PS : I copy @Futurhit12: who is the author of the file you deleted

@Domenjod: Unfortunately, any close crop of the logo would not be acceptable here. The reason it had to be deleted was because the logo is not free. It did not have a copyright license that allows anyone to use or modify the image, at any time, and for any purpose (including commercial use). The reason the photo of the truck can exist here is because of a copyright concept call de minimis. What that means is that the copyright violation is so trivial as to not matter. Cropping the image and focusing in on the logo would no longer make it trivial. It would be a pure copyright violation. There is an option though. The English wikipedia allows for fair use images. The logo can be uploaded locally directly to enwiki even though it is copyrighted. It cannot exist here. I'm currently on vacation and I won't be back till next week. If you still need help with this I can help you then. --Majora's Incarnation (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Majora: Thank you very much for taking the time to answer during your vacation. The author (Futurhit12) restored the logo according to your suggestion. Should this create a problem, we'd feel free to get back to you upon your return.

Thanks again & kind regards, --Domenjod (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2019/09#File:Shogi-Set-12.JPG

Hi Majora. Would you mind taking a look at this? It got archived without anyone commenting, which might mean that it's nothing to worry about. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: DR'ed. Highly unlikely that is ok. The artwork on the pieces would definitely make that photo a derivative work and I would think that would be copyrightable at least in the US. Japan has more lax rules on toys but the US still gives them protection. --Majora (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. I thought there might be an issue since with the pieces themselves, even if Japan treated them as utilitarian objects per COM:TOYS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

AN/U Seazzy

After you closed that section, these three edits were left unfixed: It’s only a formatting issue and serves nobody’s cause to leave it like this, I think. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Fixed --Majora (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Jim and Carl Bunch.jpg

Hi Majora. Do you think this file is out of COM:SCOPE? It's not being used anywhere and looks like a personal photo. There is a Wikipedia article about a en:Jim Bunch, but this file doesn't ever appear to have been used there. The only other upload by this editor is COM:VPC#File:Dana Plato's official death certificate.jpg which also seems a bit iffy, but for a different reason. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I would say that it is potentially useful, yes. If that is the same Jim Bunch as the article then it could be used there. I don't know much about the person to say either way. Even if it is potentially useful somewhere it is in scope. --Majora (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

License review

Can you add a license review to File:Grading a wikivandal, F.png? The source was revision deleted after I uploaded the file. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 13:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Ok...but I don't think it is all that necessary to do so. I also changed the license to {{Wikimedia-screenshot}} which is the correct one for things like this. --Majora (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! According to https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-considerations/compatible-licenses/ I am allowed to license my derivative work as BY-SA 4.0, but I don't mind. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 14:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to change it back if you want. It was more for the categorization and standardization of wikimedia screenshots. --Majora (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Dana Plato's official death certificate.jpg

Hi Majora. Do you think the older version of this file needs to be hidden/deleted? I understand that older versions are typically kept, but this was cropped and otherwise cleaned up per COM:GL/P#Crop and cleanup File:Dana Plato's official death certificate.jpg and COM:VPC# File:Dana Plato's official death certificate.jpg specifically to remove the contact info and obscure Plato's social security number. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Revision hidden. If you want to go all the way to oversight then you'll have to contact them (COM:OS) as I don't have that ability. --Majora (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. I think hiding should be fine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Working from the back

I know what you said and I agree, but as a non-admin it's more efficient to work from the front, where uncontroversial closures are more likely to be available.

Just sayin' as you might notice my name popping up here and there. Also, I'm still getting used to the tool. It's confusing that you can't close-and-keep in one go. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 16:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Strange font on Wikipedia.jpg

Hi Majora. I came across this while checking on some other files uploaded by the same editor. Since this looks like a scan of a Wikipedia page, it might not be a copyright violation per se, but I'm not sure if its correctly licensed. The screenshot seems to be a case of COM:2D copying and not really "own work" per se, but maybe there's no real difference between {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} and {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Technically it would be fine. Technically. We have {{Wikimedia-screenshot}} for such things though. So I've changed it to that. --Majora (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:New York City FC.png

Hello!

File:New York City FC.png seems less simple than the logos posted at COM:TOO US so I don’t think {{PD-textlogo}} is justified. Can you reconsider your decision at the deletion request page?Jonteemil (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: The US has a higher threshold of originality than that. It is some simple letters in a circle. Since there were no comments on the DR I had to use my previous experience and knowledge to close that DR and I still believe it was correct. You can always renominate it for deletion if you wish. --Majora (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Fair use AF

The discussion has been archived, so let's continue here. I think its fair to reduce the edit count requirement to 10 for Special:AbuseFilter/221 to improve performance. Even though it didn't hit anything for a week now, it did provide several hits over the course of three days after it was created, so I'd be interested to see it run for a little longer before drawing any conclusions. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 23:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I don't mind leaving it at 100 actually. The average run time is fine so it is not unnecessarily slowing anything down. I've been keeping an eye on it pretty much anytime I look at Commons so I can continue to watch it. If we want to do more than just logging I don't see a problem with that either although that might be overkill with it only hitting a handful of times. --Majora (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

U of C photo deletions

Explicit permission was received from the U of Calgary media centre for images to be used on Wikipedia. I therefore do not understand why these images were deleted? I would like re-nominate the files for review. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 94.200.108.10 (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific I'm afraid. I don't remember any University of Calgary images and I'm not seeing anything immediately in my deletion logs. What images are you talking about? --Majora (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Irongate TMS Logo.png

Hi Majora. I'm pretty sure that this is not {{PD-textlogo}} per COM:TOO United Kingdom and was probably just licensed as such as a mistake per COM:VPC#File: Irongate TMS.png. I thought about DRing it of even tagging as a COPYVIO, but it does seem to be a good-faith misunderstanding. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a clear copyvio, Marchjuly. Well over both US and UK TOO. You can mark those with {{Logo}} or just {{Copyvio}}. I deleted it. --Majora (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I thought it might be, but the uploader was claiming at VPC to be an employee of the company and to have been given permission to upload the file; so, I thought re-adding {{Npd}} might be an option. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

It can be undeleted via an OTRS request if/when proper permissions are received. No reason to keep the copyvio hanging around until then though. --Majora (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Majora. The same editor reuploaded this file again, this time under a CC license. There's no evidence, however, that the file has been released as such so I tagged it as a COPYVIO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Handled by another. --Majora (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

editToken

Hello Majora. I just wanted to let you know that editToken is deprecated, and you still use it in one or more of your userspace scripts. If you want your user script(s) to work properly, please replace editToken with csrfToken in source code of the scripts. You'll need to change the following script(s):

• User:Majora/LicenseReviewBeta.js

Regards, Ahmad^talk 21:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Fixed Thanks for letting me know. --Majora (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Maria Teresa d'Asburgo.png

hi mr. Majora, I am writing to ask you if you could kindly restore this portrait of a PD license, made in the 1760.--Joseph Braia von Corradi (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

If you could, Joseph Braia von Corradi, please file a request at COM:UDEL. I didn't have anything to do with that deletion so there should be a record of an undeletion request somewhere besides on a random admin's talk page. Thanks! --Majora (talk) 03:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

could then see this previous request made by this anonymous requesting the restoration of PD license files ???--Joseph Braia von Corradi (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

As I've already stated, please make an official request at COM:UDEL for the undeletion of these images. I'm not going to do anything from my talk page as that would be out of process. Thank you. --Majora (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

there is some administrator who can easily do it without if and but??--Joseph Braia von Corradi (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Demolition.jpg

Hi Majora. This seems to a be album cover art which is typically something protected by copyright. It's possible this was uploaded that by the copyright holder, but just as likely possible that it wasn't. At the very least it seems like this should be discussed at COM:DR (though {{Npd}} or some other speedy deletion is probably better). The problem is that I cannot find who uploaded the file since the description says it was uploaded by a a bot, and the bot operator states (on the bot's user page) that he most likely didn't upload the file. The file was apparently moved to Commons from German Wikipedia using the bot, but I still cannot figure out who uploaded it from its German Wikipedia page. So, I don't know who to notify about this when the file's tagged/nominated for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: It was transferred by Ireas. I have DR'ed it. I can't see any valid rationale as to why they would have transferred it here nor any proof that the license is correct. Good catch. --Majora (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for checking on this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Watchlist notices

Hi, you stated, "This appears to have been done for CU, OS, and 'Crat requests in the past." I have yet to see the use of this for any OS request, could you link to the most recent? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 05:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I think this was answered elsewhere by another but the OS request for PierreSelim had one. [3]. I don't believe the request from Revent ever had one. --Majora (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree. This means that historically Watchlist notices have only ever been used for an OS nomination once and that was six years ago. It probably means that there's no urgency in gaining a consensus for a new process... --Fæ (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Urgent? No, of course not. No policy changes like this are ever really urgent. The time frame may be a little misleading though as there has only been two OS nominations over a six year span. So a 50% usage of watchlist notices in that time. --Majora (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Mass message

We needz it.

- Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Working on it, Alexis Jazz. Didn't realize that the mass message interface requires a separate header. So I have to move all the header translations to their own pages which I'm in the process of. Give me about 10-15 minutes to makes sure everything is all set and then I can send it. --Majora (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Well...that wasn't exactly 100% successful...

That might be a problem but not much I can do about it now. The message looks right in the edit window but didn't sectionify when displayed. I'm probably going to get yelled at by someone over that... --Majora (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not yelling! Let him who has never cocked up on Wiki cast the first stone... I've just been trying to work out why the header wasn't displaying - you need to remove the space between the == and the autotranslate template, e.g, [4]. O Still Small Voice of Clam 22:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Why does that matter at all...? There are spaces in the header in this very section and it works, why does that matter in in the autotranslate template? Thank you for figuring it out Voice of Clam. I was panicking a little after I saw the problem. I'm already running an AWB run to change all the autotranslates to the alternative {{Filemovermessageheader}} which uses {{LangSwitch}} which works without having to figure out spaces between the equals. I can't leave them like that else people's archiving might get screwed up or they won't see it. Thank you again for figuring it out. Doesn't make sense. But thank you. --Majora (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know - I agree it should work, but for some reason it doesn't. Maybe worth a query at VP, or even on Phabricator? O Still Small Voice of Clam 22:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

It was my fault. I had added an extraneous line break when I creating the header part of the message and that caused the header to break. Another admin removed it and they all worked. Good thing Zhuyifei notified me before I got too far into the AWB run. I feel so incredibly stupid right now but at least it is fixed. --Majora (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

We are members of an elite group, Majora... the "we sometimes feel so incredibly stupid" group. And you're in the company of a long-time member, myself. Anyway, thank you for the message about the suppressredirect addition to the file mover privilege! P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 22:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

There are two wikitext tricks that I use a lot to debug wikitext. {{#tag:pre|WIKITEXT}}, and {{msgnw:TEMPLATE}} (and yes, sometimes, using them together, like {{#tag:pre|{{msgnw:TEMPLATE}}}}). Hope that'll help next time something weirdly breaks ;) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Good to know. Didn't know those existed. You're teaching me quite a few things this week, Zhuyifei1999, and for that I am very grateful. Usually when things break I don't panic like that but having just sent over 1,300 broken messages to people I don't think I was clearly thinking. Knowledge of some extra tools can only help next time something doesn't go as planned. --Majora (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

suppressredirect

Hi:

I have read the notice about renaming and removing de redirection (suppressredirect) but I don't understand how it can be done. Could you explain?

Pierre cb (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pierre cb: If you are using the move and replace script that is active on file pages there will be a checkbox that says "Leave a redirect behind". This is automatically checked and cannot be turned off if the file is in use. If you are using the normal Special:MovePage that is active on normal pages there will also be a checkbox there that says the same thing. To bypass the move and replace script on file pages you have to open a new tab through the "Move and Replace" button. For me I can do that by doing a "middle click" (clicking the mouse wheel on my mouse) while over the button. An alternative is to right click on the "Move and Replace" button and open it in a new tab. You can also get to the normal moving page by searching for Special:MovePage/PAGENAME in the search bar. --Majora (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Pierre cb (talk) 03:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there any way to allow suppressing redirect via that Move and Replace tool by changing code or something? Special:MovePage won't auto-update links. -- CptViraj (📧) 03:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@CptViraj: Do you have an example where this would be necessary? The tool disables the option when the file is in use. If the file is not in use you should be able to use it normally. Technically, yes. It could be changed to always allow it. However, the tool doesn't automatically move every file immediately. It tries to globally replace the file on all projects first and if it can't it adds the file to User:CommonsDelinker/commands/filemovers for further processing. If the tool allows for the suppression of redirects but fails to move all the files using your own account then the in use file would become redlinked, breaking the display. That would be very bad. --Majora (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Make sense. Another question: This suppressredirect right is given to File movers, who are suppose to make moves in file namespace. Should filemovers use this right outside of file namespace? If not then this should be added to COM:FR#Leaving redirects. -- CptViraj (📧) 03:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@CptViraj: I had to go back and reread the discussion to be sure but that action doesn't appear to have ever be brought up. Personally, I don't see a problem with it per se. Provided it is done judiciously and doesn't cause issues. The regular move ability is available to all autoconfirmed individuals and the ability to move categories is given to all registered users. So that ability is much less sensitive than moving of files (which can break hotlinking and display on other projects). Even if it was not explicitly authorized it was also not explicitly forbidden. So there are no guidelines to go on besides if you are going to do it don't muck things up (a good rule of thumb for most things). --Majora (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I also don't have any problem with it, But I thought it's nice to confirm. Thankyou, Regards. -- CptViraj (📧) 04:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Please unprotect my talk page

As long as we allow IPs to start DRs, I prefer no talk page protection. So please unprotect or at least shorten the duration. @XXBlackburnXx: thanks for reverting the vandal edits. Though, if the edits are not damaging messages from other contributors, containing racism or accusations of crimes, please leave them. I have no problem with insults, even gross ones.

The only reason I undid their initial message was because it messed with Vermont's message. Btw, you are also on their Google Groups shitlist. You, Vermont, Jimbo, many others mentioned.. I'm in good company, aren't I? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 12:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I did it after the last IP left oversightable material (which has since been dealt with). But, as you wish. I've been dealing with this vandal for quite some time and I doubt they are going to stop anytime soon. --Majora (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I've created a bot work request which would make protection of talk pages no longer objectionable for me. Their first message on my talk page wasn't oversightable, I don't know what the others were about. If they just want to insult me, I have no problem with that and reverting that may do more harm than good. Oversightable material isn't acceptable though. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Note

May want to redact that content, especially the bit that contains the external links. The content it's linking to could certainly be redacted were it posted on-wiki. GMG^talk 22:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Important message for file movers

Regarding

• a) You don't have mandate to send an official warning on behalf of Wikimedia Commons.
• b) It is arrogant, rude and patronizing to send a warning about malicious or reckless editing regardless of mandate.
• c) Why not trust (in the end of the day, the Wikimedia project is built on trust) users and just explain the new right and the rules?
• d) It (an official warning about malicious or reckless editing) is not an adequate first step in a conversation between equals imo. As a native English speaker you should be able to communicate with words, you don't need to send an warning.

Regards, --ArildV (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you expected here, ArildV. The message was sent to inform file movers of a new user right that was added to their account. It was sent to inform them of the proper uses of it since it cannot ever be assumed that people would know them. Frankly, the addition of it was done via the project configuration so the ability to suppress redirects would have just popped up without any information on it at all if the message was not sent. The message was also standardized and sent to over 1,300 people. I'm sorry if you didn't like the wording of it. It wasn't just my creation. You really shouldn't be shooting the messenger here. As for sending an official warning, I'm a sysop. I have every right to send warnings to anyone I wish. That is part of the job. Especially if that warning is about the potential removal of a user right. If I didn't send such a thing and file mover had to have been removed from someone they would complain that they "weren't warned first". --Majora (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm not convinced by your answer.

a) No one has questioned the information part.

b) I have every right to send warnings to anyone I wish. Everyone has the right to send warnings, but no one should do it without thought or reason.

c) Its not part of the job to send warnings without thought or reason.

d) Its not a formell warning because you are a sysop - you have no reason to send a formal warning to 1300 people who have not done anything wrong.

e) Especially if that warning is about the potential removal of a user right. If I didn't send such a thing and file mover had to have been removed from someone they would complain that they "weren't warned first". I still believe that you are capable of writing information without "formal warnings" and I believe the users here are capable of reading.--ArildV (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I had a reason. It was part of the discussion to send a mass message with information. I'm sorry if you didn't like the wording. But you kinda are still shooting the messenger on that point. If you look at the history of the message I wasn't the only one working on it and I wasn't the only one that looked at it and accepted the message's text. Again, no idea what you are looking for here. The message was authorized by the community. The exact wording of the message was created, and looked at, by multiple people. What exactly are you looking for? --Majora (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

You had a very good reason to send the information (thank you) but not for sending a formal warning imo. I wrote a message here because you send the message to me, and you was the only writer here. I just wanted to express my concerns.--ArildV (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I apologize if the message came across in a bad way and I understand your concerns. Since suppressredirect can be used to cause quite a lot of damage to the people that use our images those involved in the discussion wanted to make sure that people understood what it was for and understood that any problems with this right will be dealt with, swiftly. Again, I apologize if this came across as harsh or inappropriate. I chose to use the word "formal warning" so people understood that they needed to be careful when exercising this new right. I do trust people to use it properly but if that trust is broken it can be dealt with immediately instead of leaving another, subsequent, warning. As a side note, since it is an autotranslated message the main text is at Template:Filemovermessage/i18n. The main template page just houses the auto translation part of the message. --Majora (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

While I didn't speak up, I have to admit that in the Dutch translation I changed "a notice that you have this right and as an official warning" to "This message is for your information but also a warning". (it sounds better in Dutch) So I had dropped the "official" and made the message primarily about information and also a warning. The Dutch are rather direct (it's not just a myth) and serving them an officiële waarschuwing would probably result in.. well, this discussion times a hundred. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 00:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you.--ArildV (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

All files of category disappeared after moving with suppressed redirect

Yesterday, I renamed Category:Institute of Ultra-Hard Materials to Category:Institute of Ultra-Hard Materials NASU (via "More > Move") and unchecked the "create redirect" button. After that, all files of the former directory disappeared. See User_talk:Jochen_Burghardt#Category:Institute_of_Ultra-Hard_Materials_NASU for details. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I just noted that I had to move the files manually (vie Cat-a-lot), as before. After doing that, everything seems fine; so you can ignore the above message. Sorry for the confusion. Regards - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

suppressredirect is active ?

Hallo Majora, thanks for your message. When I removed a file, yesterday, I couldn't suppress the redirct. What shall I do to deactivate the checkmark in the remove formular ? Greetings from Ruhland --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR: If you are using the move and replace script you currently can't. This was originally a feature but is now a bug with Ajax. I've requested a change be made at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js#Suppress redirects option for file movers so that that option will be enabled for files not in use when file movers try to use it. Only interface admins can make that change so unfortunately we'll have to be patient there. To get around that you'll have to use the normal Special:MovePage option. To get to this from the file page itself you need to open a new tab through the move and replace button. For me, I can do that by middle clicking on my mouse (clicking on the mouse wheel). That depends on your settings. If you can't do that you can right click on the move and replace button and open it in a new tab. Hopefully the Ajax script gets tweaked soon. If it is left there for longer then a week I'll raise it at the admin noticeboard to try to get the attention of an interface admin. --Majora (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation, I will try some next more. And thanks for your work. Greetings from Ruhland --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 07:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR: FYI It's fixed now. -- CptViraj (📧) 13:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Something to do with Alt+Shift+m? (Somewhat obscure?) Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Really, its fixed. Thanks and Greetings --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

One translation

Hi. Could you tell me where can I translate "[Provide a translation or suggest a new notice]" message (if translatable)? It appears for e.g. in the box for notice about new adminship requests near the top of Watchlist. --Obsuser (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Obsuser: That link is part of the javascript that runs the watchlist messages. Honestly, I don't where it is located. I've tried to read through the code to trace it back to its location and I can't find it anywhere. Sorry. --Majora (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at Wikimedia Commons.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Martin Urbanec: You used your meta powers to send a mass message to local projects in which you do not have the ability to send mass messages? That's...incredibly sketchy. Please do not include me in any additional Google related messages. --Majora (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, isn't that...quite normal? I believe sending messages from meta is exactly for sending global messages. Otherwise, why would that be enabled? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Martin Urbanec: You're completely missing the point. First off all, just because I edited a template documentation page doesn't mean I have any interest in helping with coding. At all. You'd be better off announcing this at the village pump. Second of all, sending these things to people that don't want or need them without any warning is incredibly disruptive to the receivers and to watchlists. You do not have the right to send mass messages here. At the very least you should have announced your intention at the admin's noticeboard so at least people here knew what was coming and could have made suggestions. We have an active mass message system on Commons where people who actually have the right to send those messages actually send them. You short cutted the process, ignored the fact that the Commons community has not authorized you to send mass messages here, and did so for a message that is irrelevant to the people that received them and disruptive to watchlists which are now flooded with notices. It's incredibly inappropriate. The method you used and the receiver list you created defeats your purpose by pissing off people. You should have thought of that before you hit send. --Majora (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeeah...If you are sending any "code" related message that includes me, then you have missed the mark. GMG^talk 23:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Messages from LTAs

Hey are you receiving those messages from LTAs too? Someone forwarded me a bunch of them Masum Reza^📞 12:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Masumrezarock100: All the time. Emails, messages on other projects, etc. There is not much you can do about them besides ignore them I'm afraid. --Majora (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

suppressredirect

Hi, I renamed the File:2017.08.14.-04-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim--Kleines Wiesenvoegelchen.jpg. The suppressredirect was not possible because I couldn't remove the check mark. I write to you because of your massage you leave on my discussion page. Doesn't it work yet? --Hockei (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hockei: Hi, please see Commons:File renaming#How to suppress a redirect. That check mark is automatically checked and cannot be turned off if the file is in use. -- CptViraj (📧) 13:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

But until one minute before the renaming, the file was not in use. --Hockei (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hockei: "In use" includes on Commons. It was on Coenonympha pamphilus for an hour and a half prior to the move attempt. --Majora (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Removing Commons:File:Afida Turner live.jpg (en)

Hello Majora !

I contact you about the "Removing Commons:File:Afida Turner live.jpg (en). It was deleted on Commons by Majora" on Afida Turner's page.

Indeed, this picture was removed for no reasons because we did have the permission from wiki and wikimedia and email all the documents. This picture was taken by Ronnie Turner.

How can we do for restore it ?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babbylo (talk • contribs) 10:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Babbylo: The rationale can be see in the deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Afida Turner live.jpg. The OTRS agent who processed the ticket requested the deletion since the permission appeared to come from the person depicted in the photograph. Generally, the copyright holder of an image is the photographer not the person in the photo unless that copyright was transferred via contract or other legal action. We need permission from the copyright holder. --Majora (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer Majora. I have an explicit mail from the photographer Ronnie Turner, with his ID card to prove his agreement. Do I have to send it to you ? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babbylo (talk • contribs) 22:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Babbylo: Please have Ronnie email the permission to permissions-commonswikimedia.org and please ensure the subject line is as follows: Ticket:2016120510028196 that way it will be linked to the ticket in question. Please note that we do not accept forwarded permission so the photographer will have to send the permission directly from their email account. I'll also notify AntonierCH so that they can keep an eye out for it. --Majora (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, he send the mail. Now, hope the photo will be delivered soon. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babbylo (talk • contribs) 17:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Borrado de foto

Te fijaste que había un link donde la foto figuraba como parte de un museo? Columna de Razta (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Columna de Razta: I'm sorry I don't understand that language and I have no idea what you are talking about. Please let me know exactly what you are talking about so I can assist you. --Majora (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi there

As you were too eager to close Ed’s deRfA, you forgot to remove it from the Requests page and remove its name from the admin lists. I did it for you. You’re welcome. 1989 (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok...thank you. There was no need to tell me this however. --Majora (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Why not? It’s usual procedure, that you forgot to perform. 1989 (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

And I thank you for doing it. No need to rub things in other people's faces. --Majora (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I’m just saying you forgot some steps, that’s all. No need to assume bad faith. 1989 (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Might want to phrase your sentences differently in the future if you don't want people to assume things. Or you know, just help a colleague out without having the need to tell them about a mistake they made. Either way. --Majora (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Seeking your impartiality regarding Colin

"If anyone wants to start a poll on Commons that topic bans Alexis Jazz from starting polls on whatever random thoughts enter his head at a given moment, do let me know."

Colin isn't a particularly big fan of mine, that's old news. But why he would cough up a flame like this, unprovoked, is beyond me. I left a message on his talk page and hoped he would respond in a more mature manner, or not at all and just silently acknowledge his flame was uncalled for. But his edit comment as he undid my message pushed me over the edge to ask for your judgment: "And with one click...". What, Colin? With one click, it goes away? No, I think your one click made it worse. If Colin has a problem with my contributions, he should come to my talk page. My door is always open for any reasonably phrased criticism, even including non-personal cursing.

Am I overreacting? I respect the positive things Colin contributes to the project. I don't always agree with him, but that's okay. I'm not calling him stupid, I'm not provoking him for no reason. Is it too much to ask for him to return the favour? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 02:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I'd be fine mediating between you two if that is what you both want to try to work though whatever issues you have with each other. But both of you would have to want that. If talking through the issues is not possible perhaps just ignoring them? The comment was obviously made in frustration, for whatever reason, not anything actually serious. A long running dispute will eventually have to be dealt with in one way or another and I'm open to having whatever discussions both of you want, if both of you want it. --Majora (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd be okay with that. Though I have no general problem with Colin.. as long as he doesn't attack me. I disagree with him on various things, but that's not a problem. I just don't want him to be breathing down my neck. He was there to vote for the deletion of my essays, out of which this one may be the more relevant one where he called this proposal "my tiny poll". On Commons:Deletion requests/File:The growing problem of obesity.jpg I had given a kid a hat and sunglasses. Criticizing my work is one thing, but Colin felt the need to compare my work to this. There's more, but it's too depressing to dig up. It has been quiet for quite a while. I had pretty much forgotten about this crap. But now he's back. What Colin wants is clear: he wants to see me blocked, rather sooner than later. I just want to be left alone. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 04:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2019/07#Archiving warnings is a good example. A complex proposal with 15 points to be added to some guideline/policy and voting opened immediately. Ill thought out. No prior discussion leading towards a vote-confirming-consensus. I have complained about premature polling to several people, not just Alexis, but he consistently the worst when it comes to random-thought -> poll. See later in that archive for "Create user group 'general maintainer'" for another complex proposal that opened with polling rather than discussion. Alexis closed his "archiving warnings" proposal with a personal attack on me, as though I was to blame for it being ill though out and was bearing some grudge over GFDL. Alexis, you need to move on, stop bearing grudges and assuming that folk who disagree with you (strongly at times) are motivated by some malice. We have seen this before with your userspace being used for attack pages and lists.

Alexis, you are hasty. We've clashed before when during complex DR discussions you started mucking about with the image being discussed. That sort of thing can wait. By all means suggest you are willing to help fix a problem with such-and-such an edit, but stop rushing in and disrupting the discussion. Majora is right, yesterday's comment was made in frustration. At the "Commons:Edit war" riley actually did the best thing: they opened a discussion and asked people for their thoughts. Wonderful. Then Alexis, rather than discussing the idea in general, started proposing actual text for a brand new policy with totally new ideas like "Second reversion: always allowed if you provide a substantial reason in the edit summary". Alexis, Wikipedia/Commons is nearly 20 years old, and has a community that well understands what edit warring is, and when folk are misbehaving. Alexis's proposed brand-new-rules makes me realise Alexis doesn't actually understand edit warring and has rushed into proposing text before appreciating the issue under discussion. Alexis then disrupted Riley's discussion by making an "Alternative proposal" and opening voting on it. Again he closed it with a personal attack rather than because, well because it wasn't a good idea that anyone supported. Now Riley's promising discussion has a little "discussion closed" turd at the bottom of it, discouraging any further contributions. Well done. It is not too late for you just to cut that section out and let Riley's proposal continue.

My wish for 2020 is that Commons learns to open discussions when making proposals, to listen to others before offering concrete answers with fixed text. And to open a poll only once it seems there is consensus. I very much doubt my wish will come true. --Colin (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

How many times do I have to repeat it? That was not an attack page.

Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2019/07#Archiving warnings is a good example indeed. A good example of what makes you so annoying. So often you do have some underlying point, but are utterly incapable of making said point without insulting people. And if you start by insulting people, they won't pay attention.

I would have closed the alternate edit war proposal sooner if it had been a level 2 section, but it's level 3 so it can't be archived independently. Normally no issue, just leave it, but because you decided to add a flame to it you forced me to put out the fire. Resulting in, exactly, a little "discussion closed" turd at the bottom. Well done Colin. And how funny that you are praising ~riley's proposal. Because ~riley's proposal isn't quite a proposal. It can't be voted on. I think it would be better to have such discussions on COM:VP or another separate page for policy discussion, or bring RfC back, keeping everything that can be voted on on one page. I still think my proposal incubator was (is) a good idea, but ended up being only for me. I think Yann said something like seeing no shame in starting an imperfect proposal, seeing it fail and using that input to create a better proposal. Without a separate page for infant proposals, I can see the appeal of that as well. But if Colin comes along, any and all motivation to try and improve a proposal will swiftly be squashed by your insults.

My wish for 2020? Well I have plenty and you're not even going to make the top ten. But my wish for 2020 regarding you would be for you to act more British. They are generally great at showing their contempt for something without resorting to name-calling. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 16:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Colin and Alexis Jazz: Alright...well at least we are talking to each other. Albeit a little heatedly. I can actually see both sides of this and I agree with different parts of both of you. Besides the main VP page, which has its own problems and is certainly not the best place for such things in my opinion, Commons does not really have a dedicated "idea lab" where proposals can organically percolate and mature into fully fleshed out proposals ready for the community. This leads to issues as Colin mentioned. A sense of "rapid fire" proposals being made with supposed holes that would need to be hashed out at the same time people are voicing their opinions via !votes. This leads to problems since if a proposal is changed midway after people have already voiced their opinion it creates a bifurcated discussion muddying the waters for whomever tries to close the thing. It is quite hard to determine consensus when things change midway through. On the other hand, Alexis's method of proposing their "random-thought[s]", as you put it, has lead to tangible, positive, changes. We as a community cannot hope to improve ourselves and evolve if people are not able to, or encouraged to, voice their opinions on how they think we can operate better.

So, how can we possibly move forward here? Hopefully since both of you are talking here it is indicative of at least some desire to solve this running dispute in some fashion. Outside of creating a sort of Commons:Village pump/idea lab there probably needs to be some degree of compromise from both of you if there is any hope of moving past these issues. Alexis, I like your proposal incubator, I really do. It allows for things to be hashed out before bringing them to the community. I'm not saying this is necessary but a well thought out idea that covers the bases will cut through any confusion. Once a proposal is brought to the community at VPP to be !voted on it is probably prudent to not change it any more than minor fixes or clarifications that come up along the way. People need to be confident that what they are !voting on is going to be the actual end product and I know just from my own personal experience that once I voice my opinion on something I tend to tune out that section entirely unless brought back by a notification. There is just too much going on elsewhere and if something is modified midway I have a tendency to miss it. That includes other people's proposals. If you think you have a better idea, that's a good thing. Perhaps you thought of something that other's have not. Again, I can't stress this enough, we can't hope to grow as a community if people don't feel comfortable voicing their ideas. However, instead of tacking it on to the end of an already open proposal perhaps bring it up in the discussion section first? See if others agree. See if it can be tweaked further. There is nothing wrong with letting a current proposal fail and opening up a modified one at a later date. Or if enough people agree with your modifications the old proposal can be closed as a failure early and we can move on. Nothing is so urgent that it has to be done immediately.

Colin, you do have a rather...brash way of putting things. You are direct, which oftentimes is fine, but Alexis is correct when they say that that can lead to people tuning out your arguments instead of taking them into consideration. If a proposal comes up that you disagree with or is brought up in a manner that is is not consistent with what you believe is a good approach perhaps instead of dismissing it out of hand, give suggestions on how you think such a proposal could benefit Commons. Or if you don't think it could benefit Commons a simple "{{Oppose}}, I think the way we do things currently is a better approach" will help decrease the tension between you two. Perhaps it would be prudent to "downgrade" a proposal to more of a discussion to see where the community lies. If you think that, say that. See what the other person thinks first, tell them, perhaps in a less confrontational manner, that there are certain gaps in the proposal that should probably be worked out first. Specify those gaps. What exactly is it missing? A proposal can also be downgraded to a discussion and upgraded to a proposal later on if that is what needs to happen. This can all happen at VPP. There is no rush to our governance as, again, nothing is so urgent in this area that it has to be done immediately.

We need to be able to have discussions here. Going back to the archiving warnings proposal, since that is what was brought up, Alexis if you had started that thread as more of a discussion instead of a direct proposal it could have been allowed to mature naturally. I agree with the direction you were going with there, as Gone Postal stated in their response. We have a {{Dont remove warnings}} template but no actual prohibition on the practice. This is conflicting and should be resolved one way or the other. Colin, stating that we need consensus to even start a proposal is a step too far in the other direction. There is a problem there that should probably be resolved. Alexis identified the problem. You could have stated that instead of jumping into a full proposal perhaps a simple discussion should be done to see where the community lies on the the don't remove warnings template itself. That would have still solved the conflicting information problem and satisfied both your sides.

This has been quite a long winded block of text and I would really very much appreciate it if we could start attempting to compromise on either side here to try to solve, or at least reduce, the tension between you two. You are both great contributors and having you at each other's throats so frequently is not ideal. --Majora (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, it was a long block of text but absolutely worth it. What is an issue for me is this: when I identify a problem or have an idea for an improvement, I write a proposal. It forms as a proposal in my head. A proposal that may or may not have holes in it. And people naturally respond to such a thing with something like "Oppose, a week is too long", which gives me the information I need. If the holes are small, I generally patch them while the proposal runs and ping everyone who voted so far to confirm their vote. In discussion form, I'd have to translate the proposal to a discussion opening (leaving everyone with questions and without direction) and afterwards I'd be expected to translate the discussion into a perfect proposal.. I know that's what Colin wants, but this isn't how my head works. I will think twice before tacking on a proposal to an existing thread, but I stand by my opinion that ~riley's proposal isn't "the best thing" as Colin calls it. I'd rather vote on a poor proposal than a vague/undefined proposal.

I can't really think of a good solution. The ideas form as proposals in my head, and those would generally result in either useful feedback or they get accepted. I asked for feedback on the incubator idea on the VP at the time and the feedback (which was limited, which says enough) doesn't suggest the community is waiting for something like an incubator or idea lab. Putting WIP proposals on VP is.. weird. All I can think of is a "WIP proposal" template to put on top of any proposal that isn't the direct result of something that came before and post it on VPP anyway. I don't know, maybe? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 04:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Majora, I didn't say "we need consensus to even start a proposal". My complaint was "starting polls on whatever random thoughts enter his head at a given moment". I have on multiple occasions linked to m:Polls are evil. Alexis is not the only person who I have made that complaint about. JeffG's daft proposal to turn COM:MELLOW into a guideline was similarly ill thought out and went straight to poll. I also cited Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and Wikipedia:Consensus then and suggested, not seriously of course, perhaps we should start blocking people for "making a proposal with a voting section". I don't have a problem with Alexis having ideas and making proposals to the community. I have a problem with him and others immediately going into a poll. It is not only unwise but rather arrogant, because it assumes the community loves your idea in all its many parts. In 2019, with Wikipedia/Commons being nearly 20 years old, we shouldn't still be having a discussion about whether going straight to a poll with a new idea is a good thing to do. Wiki has known for a long time that it is a bad thing to do.

Riley proposed Commons have its own guideline on Edit Warring. Instead of offering his own text immediately, and inventing new rules for blocking, he tested the waters with the idea and actively sought other people's thoughts on the matter. If he takes it forward, then I'd expect to see some proposed text on the actual guideline page, and this text can be discussed on the proposed guideline talk page, as with any guideline or policy in gestation. I do have some experience with this, having nurtured WP:MEDMOS into formal guideline status, and creating the medical sourcing guideline WP:MEDRS, which is one of the most cited guidelines on Wikipedia. They took months, years, and lots of community discussion. Alexis is too hasty and wants his ideas, his words, approved and implemented right now. -- Colin (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I guess this conflict will never end. Colin is right because he believes he is, and there appears to be no room to discuss or compromise. It's Colin's way or the highway. I'd prefer the highway. And yes, I like moving forward quickly if at all possible. I'd rather not quibble for years if it can be avoided. There are cases that do require lengthy discussion, but there are also cases that simply don't. And what was the issue with Jeff G.'s proposal? Yes, I opposed it, but it was an effective method of figuring out the community wouldn't support it and why. And your statement "because it assumes the community loves your idea in all its many parts" was already busted by my previous reply, before you even said it. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 03:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Em, my position on discussion vs polling isn't of my own personal invention. The entire wikiverse acknowledges that premature polling is bad, and many have explained so far more eloquently than I can, in the links I have provided. It is a bit like "don't edit war": a community accepted recommendation, which unfortunately is frequently ignored. You can't just decide to ignore it because "my-opinion/your-opinion meh". -- Colin (talk) 10:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 15:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Colin and Alexis Jazz: Now hang on you two. I'm not entirely sure I agree with the statement that all polling is bad. There is a place for it and it can be a good way to gauge the community reception to certain ideas that may not be fully hashed out yet. I do find the use of "Votes" section at VPP a little strange but for the most part those proposals do have a discussion section or at the very least the votes section turns into a discussion section. For someone like me who looks to close such things there can be a way of discerning consensus even if it is mostly voting since most participants back up their votes with rationales as to why they are going that direction. Standing firmly in what you currently believe in and do will just result in this dispute continuing I can tell you that right now. However, I really do think there is a way forward here. Your positions can be compromised if both of you are willing to do so. I firmly believe that proposals, once created, should be allowed to run their course. Besides very minor changes or clarifications a proposal should not be added to or modified in a substantial way unless it is closed, rethought, reformatted, and reopened. This is primarily a current problem with you, Alexis. I understand that you have a lot of ideas on how Commons can be improved and that is fine. But this is an easy area where you can compromise. Alexis, there is also the issue that certain proposals that you come up with are not fully hashed out. In these instances, perhaps it is better to not launch into a full proposal right away, but instead to use VPP to get people's opinions first. Do people agree with you at all? Or is this looking like something where the status quo is more supported?

Colin, as I mentioned before, I honestly don't believe as strongly as you appear to do that all polling is bad no matter the current situation. I understand that Wikimedia has been around a long time but that doesn't mean that previous ways of doing things are necessarily the way we have to stick to. Commons does not have a designated place to allow ideas to mature and grow. The current best place for that is, unfortunately, VPP. Polling can help determine if a certain idea even has enough traction to continue and if the polling is strong enough that can lead to consensus without the need to morph the poll into another proposal. I believe that just from doing proposal closures and understanding how the Commonists who frequently participate in VPP operate. This is the place where you need to compromise if there is any hope in reducing the tension. Not all polls are bad, and not all "Votes" sections are necessarily a pure vote proposal. Seeing that and allowing such things to continue, even constructively participating in them even if you feel like it is more of a poll, can only help the process. Your actions could even change the way the proposal is structured. Allowing people to build off of your response into more the discussion format, if one does not already exist. Could we try to start to compromise? Is that possible at all? I know it is hard. Changing the way you have been conducting yourself is challenging for anyone but I really don't see any other way to begin to move forward here if both of you refuse to even attempt change. --Majora (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not refusing change. I had already made a suggestion above: to tag certain proposals with a WIP template. I don't know if that's a good solution, I was just thinking out loud, but I do believe it shows I am willing to make adjustments. I also already said above that I will think twice before tacking a proposal to an existing thread. (which means: I won't do it unless there is a compelling reason to do so) That's a change, isn't it?

Now, the other part "perhaps it is better to not launch into a full proposal right away, but instead to use VPP to get people's opinions first". Well, you see, in theory that's good. In practice, I think, a question without direction doesn't work well. Imagine I ask "hey, let's change up deletion requests shall we?" I suppose I'd get either no response because nobody knows what I mean, the discussion derails before it even starts with worries about stuff that I already solved or (very common!) people say "if not broken y iz u fixing?" Such discussions don't help. Which is why I intend to build a new DR system on betacommons first. Without anything to show, there's nothing to discuss. And sure it's hit and miss, but that's life. This is not to say I'm not willing to reconsider. I recognize there are issues, and suffer from them too. But I don't know how to create an effective format without an "idea lab" or something like that. I can try but.. it's just awkward for the most part. I don't see many good examples to draw from either. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 23:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: You do make good points and I do see that you are open to change. Thank you for that. I think a work in progress tag might very well be helpful for more germane ideas. Redoing one of our more critical processes on beta is also probably the right way to go about doing it per your comments above. People certainly would immediately discount anything of the sort without an exemplar. If people really think that a Commons:Village pump/idea lab is a good idea I can go create that right now. It wouldn't take much and to be honest I'd just go create it and see where it goes. If people don't like it I can always delete it later. --Majora (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Or (if it fizzles out after a while), it could simply be archived. I think it's worth a try. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 04:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I honestly think ideas should be discussed on, say, the main VP, get some 'ideas' for improvements on the idea first, then create a vote on VP/P. A new idea lab (for only a short time) will not have the desired attention, and the problem with creating a vote poll on the 'initial version' is, well, too many polls and alternate proposals that are quickly abandoned for more alternates. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Majora, I never said "all polling is bad". That might be the click-bait shortcut link but the long explanation is of course that you should keep polling for when you just need a confirmation of what you already think the consensus is (assuming it is important/contentious enough to even need a poll at that stage). I disagree with "it can be a good way to gauge the community reception to certain ideas that may not be fully hashed out yet" for all the reasons given in the linked articles. I understand as closing admin you want an easy job, but I don't think making your job easy should be the primary objective of how we propose ideas on Commons. Polling doesn't provide a forum where people can work together towards a proposal/wording/text/rule that they are happy with. Instead it polarises the debate before it even gets started, and you end up with votes that don't supply useful information, or are so determined to knock down some flaws that they don't concede there is merit in some of it. I honestly think if you start off a proposal, like Riley did, by saying you have this idea, and these thoughts and what does the community think, then you'll get your hostile or enthusiastic response made loud and clear anyway. The only change that is needed is to avoid creating those Votes/Discussion sub sections and to avoid writing a little  Support bullet point -- cause we already know you support it and it just encourages others to vote rather than discuss. As to what forums or new idea lab pages, hmm. There's already a problem with the VP/Proposal not being on many watchlists. Quite a lot of proposals get very little participation. -- Colin (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Quality just might be one of the reasons for that. DRs often also see too little participation. Because it's a mess. I would respond to more if they were categorized. VPP suffers a bit from the same issue: actual votes and lengthy discussions that are going nowhere all on the same page. People lose interest. Some people want to discuss, some just want to vote, many don't want both. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Quantity might be the issue with DRs. The sheer number of them is daunting. Looking at the monthly list where there can literally be 1,000 separate requests can make anyone tune right out and click away. --Majora (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's another way to say it actually. I meant the quality of categorization of DRs (which is nearly non-existent currently), but also the quality of many DRs. Nominators often provide limited rationale and you're always forced to visit the file page for information. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 04:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Colin: I never actually said I want it easy. If things are always easy we wouldn't need anyone to make decisions. We could have a bot do the work. I said that often times discussions that have a "Votes" section become true discussions even if they are structured more like a poll. This is an inherent way that people who have been on these projects a while conduct themselves. I do agree with you that not having an actual section for "voting" is ideal. But the use of {{Support}} and {{Oppose}} templates are also helpful. They break up the blocks of text. This actually makes the flow of discussion easier to read. Not necessarily easier to interpret but easier to read. I'm used to scientific articles where all there is is blocks of text so I have some capacity to power through them but an inherent human mentality is to start to wander (mentally) when what you are reading is not engaging. Blocks of text are not generally engaging. --Majora (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I think Majora, you are focussing too much on the superficial. Those little templates make the text pretty, make people's overall opinion a simply binary one that is simple to count, make it easier to see when a new person is speaking. But for all the fundamental reasons, the important reasons, they are harmful, and wiki has known and documented that for many years. Looks like I'll just have to continue to express this view at VP/P and Alexis will have to continue making personal attacks at me in grumpiness for spoiling his wonderful proposal. I have a thick skin, and when he does that, it makes him look childish. -- Colin (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 18:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

COM:AN#Combining multiple DRs into a single one

Hi Majora. Would you mind taking a look at COM:AN#Combining multiple DRs into a single one. Pooh456 has nominated a lot of their uploads for deletion, but did so on a per file basis instead of creating a mass deletion request. Since all of the files were nominated due to Pooh456's concerns about violating some related to personality rights claimed by the Japan Shogi Assocation and not because of any copyright issues, it probably would be better to discuss all of the files in the same place then having to jump from DR to DR to post essentially the same comment; keeping everything together might also make things easier from a record-keeping and future reference standpoint. For what it's worth, Pooh456 may be right but this seems like something which could turn into a long and complicated DR, and may even someone affect other files not nominated by Pooh456 uploaded by other users. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Update: Pooh456 saw one of my posts and went ahead and started Commons:Deletion requests/Shogi Proffesionals; the problem is that now there seem to be two DRs ongoing for each file, which cannot be a good thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: this is dealt with now I think. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 18:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to do that Alexis Jazz. I wasn't sure if it was something which needed to be done by an administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Question

Why can't messages be removed from users talk pages because the owners don't want them there? --VKras (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Messages that are obvious vandalism/harrasment/trolling, can be reverted. If not obvious enough, I'd wait for the talk page owner's response. By the way, thanks for reverting that IP's edits to my talk page. Have a good day. Masum Reza^📞 17:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Masumrezarock100 Yes, this edit is obvious vandalism. --VKras (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure which edit you are referring to. Could you provide a link? Masum Reza^📞 18:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Masumrezarock100 [5]. --VKras (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Logos are uploaded

hi. here's my answers:

1. The Ultra Diamonds Logo is made by me with my friend. 2. the Hapoel Haifa's 90th Anniversary logo is made by me and with the CEO of the club. 3. the Hapoel Rubi Shapira Haifa Logo is made by another designer.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.138.214.167 (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

PD ART

These files :

• file:Constance of Brittany.jpg
• file:Arthur I Brittany.jpg
• file:Isabella Angouleme.jpg
• file:Blanca II de Navarra.jpg
• file:Eleanor of England of Brittany (1241).jpg
• file:Alix of Thouars.jpg
• file:Marjorie Bruce, Princess of Scotland.jpg
• file:Anne of Burgundy.jpg
• file:Margaret I, Countess of Burgundy.jpg

ARE NOT old artwork. They have been created in 2011 by the so called "lost gallery". This flickr user has created lots of photomontages mix-mashing authenticly old parts and much modern elements in a way which really differs from original images. Just for comparaison this one is the original watercolour from the French National Library and that one is the work created by The Lost Gallery. The result IS NOT and CANNOT BE considered as a "faithful and unimaginative picture" of an historical work out of copyright. These are 21th century original works, partly made of old element, but fully covered by copyright.

In addition, these images DO NOT depict the mentionned persons. They are just illustrations created by the mind of a 21th century flickr user. Once again this image IS NOT a 14th c. depiction of Marjorie Bruce. It has never been meant to. It is the princess of Lydda (Greece) from a 15th century painting of saint George Slaying the dragon by Jost Haller adapted with shields which are not part of the original painting. Should these files have been uploaded by their author, they would have been deleted as Advertising or self-promotion, because they are not ""providing knowledge; instructional or informative" and because commons is not a depository for personnal files.

So these files are blatant copyright violations and misleadingly attributed to person they don't depict. They are clearly out of scope. And you should pay more attention to the arguments of users before speedily closing depetion discussions after barely ten minutes (which is totally out of commons consensus procedures). — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.85.250.38 (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Something wrong?

Hey. For some reason, the license review script doesn't recognize {{YouTubeReview}} as a review template and "No template detected" pops up. Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 09:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Minorax: That's because it is a newer template and hasn't been integrated into the review script. I'll work on it but I've gotten extremely busy lately in real life and I haven't really had a lot of time for Commons recently. I will try to get it done as soon as I can. --Majora (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

There isn't really a need to rush it as a reviewer can still manually add in the template. Just telling you in case you're unaware of it. Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 10:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Minorax: Should be all set now. There may need to be some tweaking of the actual {{YouTubeReview}} template though. There are two different instances of how review of these files can go. Something like File:Vigenère-Verschlüsselung.webm only needs to add "|reviewer=USERNAME". However, files like File:Triglav ébredése The awakening of Triglav.webm appear to have been missed by the bot so it has to add all the parameters. ID, date, and reviewer. However, in these instances the template still states that the review was originally done by the review bot which is incorrect. I could just switch the template in these cases to the standard {{LicenseReview}} but we should probably be standardized in what template we are using. {{YouTubeReview}} for YouTube reviews. In that case, we may need to add a switch to the template to indicate that the review was done solely by the indicated, human, reviewer. --Majora (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems ok for now, thanks! I'll talk to Eatcha about the template. Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 13:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Vanishing request

Can you hide all previous wikitext revisions of File:Dydoes.jpg?

Google is still haunting him it seems. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 11:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Also hide the edit summary of the intial revision (Special:Redirect/revision/10469088) - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 12:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz:  Done A NSFW warning next time would be highly, highly appreciated. --Majora (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh craps, I didn't think of that. You had uploaded a new version, but that was half a year ago so it makes sense you didn't remember the filename. Sorry. Thanks for the revdel. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 22:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Behaviour from an account you previously blocked

Hi, I have pinged you at COM:VP#Mass DR of sexuality WLC about an account exhibiting the same behaviours that had them banned on en.wp, noting here as pings don't always work after reindenting discussion. Your view may be useful, considering the same behaviour came up only a few weeks ago. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Fæ: I'll look at it. I've gotten extremely busy in real life lately and haven't has a lot of time for Commons so please forgive me if I've missed some things lately. I'm not promising anything other than I'll take a look at it. --Majora (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Why "undo" instead of "revert"?

Special:Diff/398815433. Please note that this way someone who patrols RC has to lose time to deal with a change that actually has been already dealt with. Also you loose your time to type something obvious. --jdx ^Re: 07:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Louisa Krause in 2015.png

Is there a reason why I can't license review some Youtube images like this one? --Leoboudv (talk) 23:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC) A message says: RegExp did not match. Likely no changes. Please report to User talk:Majora/LicenseReview.js --Leoboudv (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• File:Mercedes Trimarchi.png

Same issue with this one. Hmm! --Leoboudv (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: The template doesn't list an id which according to the documentation at {{Youtubereview}} is required. Without the id parameter the review script doesn't know what to grab for replacement purposes so it fails. --Majora (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks Majora for telling me the id problem. I had no idea. Best Regards from Vancouver, Canada....where yes, it is still 9:02 PM February 29. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

LR script

Hey, I'm not sure if you're free enough to fix the LR script but I'll just put this here in case I forget. A file was uploaded and tagged with {{YouTubeReview}} but the LR script is not compatible with it and this happened. Hope you can fix it. Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 13:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Minorax: I see what happened. Should be all fixed now. The history of the image shows it working correctly now. If you run across any other issues please let me know. {{YouTubeReview}} was a little more complicated than normal LR templates since multiple different things can happen depending on who got to it first, a human or the bot. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 16:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Files like File:Kim Sae-byuk.jpg, which have the archive parameter, can't be reviewed. Error message is "RegExp did not match. Likely no changes. Please report to User talk:Majora/LicenseReview.js". Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 06:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

(sigh)...should be all fixed now. After extensive testing on File:Kim Sae-byuk.jpg (which kinda made the history a mess but oh well) I believe I got all the various variables covered. Again, please let me know if anything else comes up and thank you again for reporting the issue, Minorax. --Majora (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems fine now, thanks :) Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 08:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Imagen

@Majora: Por favor se necesita su aprobación para ésta imagen File:Luis Rodríguez Bucio.jpg --Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Majora: Por favor--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  Ok...not sure why this had to be done immediately but  Done --Majora (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Majora: Gracias--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Revisor

• @Majora: Sobre mi solicitud para ser revisor de licencias,¿Cuando podría presentar de nuevo mi solicitud?--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• @Majora: Por favor--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  I don't speak Spanish, Aurelio de Sandoval. I can only really use Google translate so I'm sorry if there is some communication issues between us. It is not about a time frame. You can reapply when you can show that you understand copyright fully enough that we can trust you to review the licenses. This isn't a race and giving you a time frame is not appropriate as time doesn't necessarily equal competency. --Majora (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Majora: Ok thank you--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Location of Iraq

Can you please unprotect this file about the location of Iraq? I may upload a new file about the location of Iraq as South Sudan is no longer part of Sudan. SeifED23 (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@SeifED23: No I cannot unprotect that file. It is used on hundreds of pages across wikimedia. Also, you need to read our policy on overwriting files. --Majora (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Majora: So, can I upload as a new file about the location of Iraq? SeifED23 (talk) 07:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes you can. --Majora (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Olga311

respected User:Majora Give me back pictures of where you deleted me from Wikimedia Commons, namely: Luigi.png, Wario.png, Bowser.png and Yoshi.png. Don't block me, please. Olga311 (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Olga311: I can't do that. They were copyright violations. They were certainly not your "own" work so putting them under that license is a blatant lie. You cannot just upload whatever you want here. Everything you find on the Internet is under a copyright license we cannot use unless it explicitly says otherwise. Please read our license requirements for more information. --Majora (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

COM:MISS

Just in case you come back, Tuvalkin added you to COM:MISS, so don't forget to remove yourself there if we forget to do so. Regards, pandakekok9 02:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Coccoc Windows screen.png

File:Coccoc Windows screen.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

WPSamson (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Rebecca Sommer (artist).jpg

File:Rebecca Sommer (artist).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Bencemac (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Category:Pending_removals_to_be_checked

Pending removals to be checked has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Geo Swan (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

File:WNDU logo.png

File:WNDU logo.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Adamant1 (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Unexpected

so Hi I have m missed this platform thought maybe id never see it again are you sure that you can help me through this one ? Demitrea (talk) 03:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)