User talk:Pi.1415926535/Archive 8

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

File:My Parliament.svg[edit]

Hi Pi,

I see you've deleted and salted File:My Parliament.svg. That's actually a useful file: it's the default test filename for the parliament diagram tool and allows users (and developers!) to test the tool's functionality. Can we have it back please? --Slashme (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slashme: I've undeleted the file. I originally deleted it because I was worried about users mistakenly trying to add the file in articles. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:YAMLAISLENIN[edit]

I see you are also doing cleanup here; found myself cross-posting. Can I assume you will clean up the rest of this and I don't need to continue? - Jmabel ! talk 01:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: I think I got everything. I create-protected the file, and I'm filing a request for checkuser in hopes of getting a rangeblock. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I don't spend a lot of my time here dealing with vandals, so I'm sure my approaches to it are not the most efficient. - Jmabel ! talk 02:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I don't deal with them too much, but occasionally I play whack-a-mole. You're clearly a very trusted admin; for cases like this that are clearly vandals, you're never going to get flack for a quick block. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:BBC.svg[edit]

Hi! Don't you think there should have been a new DR and not just a speedy? --MGA73 (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For File:BBC Radio 4 Extra.svg I mean. --MGA73 (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
UK threshold of originality is very low; this image was deleted previously per Commons:Deletion requests/File:BBC Radio 4.svg. I don't believe a second DR is necessary, but I won't object if you wish to undelete and DR. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:April-27-rotation-tracks-eastern-u-s-1.jpg[edit]

I was attempting to get permission for this file when it was abruptly deleted! I had absolutely NO ADVANCE WARNING and am appalled by what happened. Can I PLEASE finish with the permission before I just get another file deleted before I can even finish the process?ChessEric (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate deletion of obvious copyright violations is Commons policy. It is your responsibility as an uploader to ensure that your uploads are in fact available under the claimed license. It is clear that you need to be more careful with copyright and sourcing, as you have falsely claimed a newspaper, a mural, and a plaque as NWS works. For this specific image, some of the background imagery is copyrighted by Google. Because of that, you should not have uploaded the file unless you had already secured permission from Google to use their imagery. In the event you are able to get permission from Google for use of their imagery and send it to OTRS, the image will be undeleted by an OTRS volunteer. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of File:Tiara of Franciscus.jpg[edit]

I just noticed that you deleted the file File:Tiara of Pope Francis.jpg four days ago due to copyright infringement; unfortunately, I was unable to obtain any further details from your edit summary. Could I please have some clarification? Rossel44 (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rossel44: The image was originally posted on twitter, not on the blog that was listed as the source, and there is no indication that it was actually released under the claimed cc-by-sa-3.0 license. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How can you be sure that this photograph was originally posted on Twitter? Ms. Schneible does not claim that, and the fact that she speaks of a mitre instead of a tiara and calls Lake Ohrid “Ohred Lake” does not indicate an excessive knowledge of the events.
In addition, the picture was also published on zenit_ on the same day, just a few hours later. Rossel44 (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rossel44: The twitter image is the highest resolution, which generally indicates it is the original. In any case, there is no indication that the copyright holder (whoever it is) has released it under the claimed license. (Also note that you don't need to ping users on their own talk page - they get a notification when someone posts.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Do you think it is promising to use the photograph in a manner consistent with fair use? Rossel44 (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commons does not allow fair use content. For individual projects like enwiki that do allow fair use, it is possible but unlikely; since it's only one item in a list article, it's doubtful that it would meet the requirement for substantive commentary. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

deletions[edit]

Hi! Why did you delete some files that I uploaded? When adding them, I was sending them like file File:Michele Morrone 2019.jpg. It was also uploaded to YouTube under the same license and on the same channel. And why did you delete file File:BEG logo.jpg that I uploaded? In Category:Text logos are thousands of files like this. Others files that you delete was on NEBU Wiki on Fandom--Kulawik.pl Napisz do mnie / Write to me 12:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kulawik.pl: File:BEG logo.jpg is not eligible for {{PD-textlogo}} - its complex textures and shading make it above the threshold of originality. As for the files from Telemagzyn, I have undeleted them and a license reviewer will check them. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cat removal[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Seymour_station&diff=448177468&oldid=338495326 : I don't get this removal. I don't see anything up the line of categories that implies that, and I'm pretty certain it's true. - Jmabel ! talk 00:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: I moved that category to the newly-created Category:Seymour station (New Haven Railroad), as I found a few old postcards of that iteration of the station. The current brick shelter is apparently from the 1980s; from my recollection, it certainly smells like it hasn't been cleaned since then. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! - Jmabel ! talk 00:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Outbound platform of Griggs Street station.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

VICnotbot (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

undelete Deletion of old artists[edit]

@Janee: I have undeleted the files. Please add correct date information (currently all say 2020), as well as a proper license demonstrating that these are in the public domain in both Sweden and the US. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful…[edit]

… with your borderline aggressive closing remark in Special:Diff/514503606. You’ve missed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Melodie Gore at Man's Ruin party 1.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Melodie Gore at Man's Ruin party 2.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Melodie Gore at Man's Ruin party 3.jpg, and to some extent also Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/04/Category:Melodie Gore. Thank you, —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MisterSynergy: That close was not intended to be aggressive in the slightest, merely explanatory. Individually nominating these images - rather than nominating them as a group - meant that the discussion was spread out over four different pages. I was not even aware of the other discussions until your message, because they had been closed prior to me coming across this one. In the future, if you wish to nominate multiple similar files for deletion under the same rationale, I recommend using a tool like VFC to perform a bulk nomination. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I did not know this tool. Hopefully I still remember it next time I come across such a task. The interface looks pretty complicated and overloaded, though. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MisterSynergy: If I may chime in: It is still the easiest way to nominate multiple related images in a single request, and I find it actually quite easy to use after a while of getting used to it. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will remain a very occasional user here due to my engagement in other projects. Probably I will nominate files for deletion only once every couple of months or so, similarly as in the past. It would already be a success if I would remember the gadget’s existence next time; getting used to it will likely not happen, unfortunately. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, should you remember me, feel free to ask me for assistance! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Per Gestumblindi"?[edit]

In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rickenbach TG katolika preghejo 181.JPG and related deletion requests Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rickenbach TG katolika preghejo 177.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rickenbach TG katolika preghejo 176.JPG, I wasn't sure that we can keep these pictures, but said that maybe we could argue that the copyrighted 1993 painting in the apse falls under COM:DM as part of the interior of a church that it is otherwise most likely out of copyright due to age. You closed these as "Kept: per Gestumblindi", so I assume that it was the DM part you're referring to (another idea I had was blurring the painting), but maybe you could add a short explanation like "painting is DM" to your closing comment, so it is clearer? Gestumblindi (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my apologies for the unclear comment. I'll try to remember to explicate more in cases like that. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lauwiner[edit]

Hey Pi, based on Special:Diff/515671188 I may perhaps do need some more guidance here.

There is quite some content related to the "Lauwiner Empire" hoax and its "King Jonas I" ("Jonas Lauwiner") in Commons which I would like to nominate for deletion. Unfortunately, I cannot figure out a common factor that allows me to nominate everything in a single batch. The best I can provide right now is a search for "Lauwiner", see here. I am not fully sure about the three images about historical persons, but the modern images and the coat of arms/map/flag images are clearly related. If necessary, I would compile a list with all files that I think are related. These images have been uploaded by users who are not active in any other way, they simply claim something here and try to drop the images in other Wikimedia projects.

A similar request has been made previously at least once at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Lauwiner Empire. There are usually a couple of accounts active in this field, and they try to promote this "empire" in several Wikimedia projects. Yet, their empire has no recognition whatsoever, so it is to be categorized somewhere between a joke and a hoax.

So, how to go about this case? —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, that's quite the mess you found. In this case, I was able to clean it up myself - I speedily deleted all the images, and blocked the users as sockpuppets. (@Guanaco and Ruslik0: courtesy ping since you've both dealt with this sock farm before.)
MisterSynergy, for the future: If you go to Special:Preferences, click the "Gadgets" tab, and scroll down to "Maintenance tools", you can activate the VFC gadget, which will add a "perform batch task" on the left sidebar of many pages. That allows you to use VFC directly on search results, even when the files are from different users and in different categories. Something like "Hoax images - see [[Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Lauwiner Empire]]" would be an appropriate explanation for the deletion. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have already activated the VFC gadget, but I was not aware that it can operate on search results.
I recently had to delete some of this Lauwiner stuff from Wikidata, and then found the images here on Commons. Since there was very recent activity, I would not be surprised if they re-upload such images again. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birdsboro PRR Station[edit]

Why where the photos of the Birdsboro PRR Station (such as File:Birdsboro PRR Station - 50429790961.jpg) deleted? They are properly licensed and were to be used to show how the station had been moved in the article in question. Category was created also for them. Other photos by the same author have been used here on Commons without a problem. Oaktree b (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: The issue was not with the licensing; it was that there were a number of duplicates among the set you uploaded. All of the photos I deleted were exact duplicates of files still in the category - nothing was lost. (File:Birdsboro PRR Station - 50429790961.jpg, for example, was exactly the same as File:Birdsboro PRR Station - 50429790306.jpg.) Adam Moss tends to shoot in burst mode (which increases the odds of a good shot in the event of shaky hands or whatnot), which means that most of his flickr sets have a number of identical duplicate photos. As uploader, it is your responsibility to check for these duplicates before uploading the set. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larsen[edit]

Dear Pi.1415926535, You closed a deletion request on the basis of Copyright violation for files of Ulf Larsen as keep. The accompanying text mentions the so-called girlfriend to be OK with the photographs and refers to OTRS ticket #2020102510004811. That's fine with me. But does this OTRS ticket also cover the copyrights of the photographer? Because contrary to what all files by Ulf Larsen mention, Ulf Larsen is certainly not the photographer or the film maker of the photos he uploaded. Vysotsky (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vysotsky: As you mentioned, the primary issue of that specific DR was the consent of the other person. Because of the degree of controversy in the DR, I intentionally kept my closure to that narrow subject. If you believe there is a potential copyright issue with the files, I suggest you ask the OTRS user who added the tags (I do not have OTRS access) and/or the uploader, and file a new DR if necessary. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Vysotsky (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your quick deletion[edit]

12 hours after the Deletion requests/File:COVID arwydd Coronafeirws.jpg: hanes golygu file being nominated, you deleted the image. I have a few questions:

  1. 12 hours seems awfully short for the uploader to respond and argue why they think the image should stay. Is that the norm? Shouldn't 7 days be reasonable?
  2. The image was on one of the most popular articles on Wikipedia. Was that taken into account?
  3. Which part of the image you say was under copyright?
  4. Whose copyright was allegedly infringed?

Many thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywelyn2000: Please recheck the timestamps on the deletion request: at 7 months old, it was one of the oldest still-open DRs when I deleted it. Usage of the file is irrelevant when the issue is copyright - we will not keep copyright violations just because they are on a popular article. The sign shows both copyrighted text (copyright of the government agency that wrote it) and images (copyright of whoever made those images). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proper attribution[edit]

I see you are referring to the attribution on the upload log. As you can see, this was a mishap that was quickly amended to the correct attribution, such as the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department. Both of these images are iconic mug shots (though I admit iconic mug shots are extremely rare) taken by arms of the law, and therefore, they are public domain. I will try to ensure that the upload log does not contain such mishaps with any future uploads. - Bossanoven (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

hello, nice to meet you How do I include Template: Non-free album cover on the cover of an album that I upload? It's getting difficult for me to do it correctly Nohayunolibre (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use images like album covers are not allowed on Commons. That should be clear from the upload form and the numerous messages on your talk page. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File split denied[edit]

Why did you not split this image File:Park Street (Medford) station 1908 postcard.jpg and retains this as a separate image? The stamp sides of postcards are suitable for keeping as separate files too. We have many of them. Or did you not link the back file to a new front file? Ww2censor (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you find the reverse side of a postcard to be important, then please upload it as a separate file rather than requesting a split. Having the reverse side in the file history is important, especially for post-1926 postcards where it establishes the copyright status. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder[edit]

Hi Pi.14, and Happy 2021 ! You forgot to close this deletion debate. ǁ ǁǁǁ Chalk19 (talk) 06:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, thanks for the reminder. Happy 2021 to you as well! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

Thank you for your answer to my question at the Village Pump. Very helpful to me. Best wishes, Krok6kola (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to image? + In 2021 is here returned[edit]

Awesome lol image that Lol😄😄😄😄 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andre Farfan (talk • contribs) 23:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you are asking about File:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map on Earth.png, which I deleted as an unneeded duplicate of File:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map.svg that you falsely claimed as you work. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My filemover right[edit]

Hello Pi. I'm sorry you had reason to deny me this right. I have always tried to ensure the quality of Wikipedia and Commons. That I sometimes deleted the original names is basically a misunderstanding. Of course, I didn't want to disturb or even harm. I thought it was better to throw away the superfluous. It wasn't very clear to me that this could have negative consequences.
I would like to ask you to reactivate this right for me. I upload a lot of pictures and despite great care, I make sometimes mistakes that I could correct in this way. In addition, I keep coming across very badly named files - either without a comprehensible connection, or just very clumsy. I believe that with filemover right I will definitely be even more useful to Commos. I also promise that I will only delete the original names of the files in exceptional situations (e.g. after quickly discovering an error in the file I have uploaded). Regards --Mewa767 (talk) 09:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the right because it appears you understand how to correctly perform filemoves. Please also be careful to always use detailed edit summaries when performing moves - when I rescinded the right last year, it was partially because you were not using edit summaries. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Are there any guidelines on what the edit summaries should look like? --Mewa767 (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any official guidance. How long the summary should be depends on how obvious the move is: moving from a nonsense name to a useful name could have something as short as "clarify subject" or "replace meaningless name", whereas more subtle changes may need longer explanations. You can also reference the move criterion numbers at Commons:File renaming. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks once again. --Mewa767 (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

USA Rail[edit]

Hello! First, I am not sure if this is the correct way to contact you...this website confuses me very much! However, I have been trying for months to find the person that took the pictures on the USA Rail site. http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/ I finally found their name (or I believe I did), but I can not find a way to contact them. Are you the one that took the pictures? Do you know the person who did? I just have a few questions about a set of pictures they took (it has nothing to do with copyright or anything like that). If this is you, I would GREATLY appreciate it if you can email me (ckopkas@gmail.com) or respond on here (although I am not sure I will be able to find my way back here! lol) If it is not you, if you have any ideas of how I might be able to find contact information, I would be forever in your debt! Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobination (talk • contribs) 01:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dobination: I am not the photographer (Hikki Nagasaki); I've just uploaded a number of the images. I unfortunately don't know how to find contact info if it's not on his site. Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:TATTOO_the_MIDGET_has_a_bigger_POSSE.jpg[edit]

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:TATTOO_the_MIDGET_has_a_bigger_POSSE.jpg is a photo of a "Public domain object" -- I am the copyright holder of the original. Can this please be undeleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanCross (talk • contribs) 13:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, recent artworks are not public domain objects in the United States. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for Buses in California[edit]

I still want to split off subcategories for Category:Buses in California, and right now, I'm considering one for the "Big Blue Bus" of Santa Monica. Should I just go with something like Category:Buses of the Santa Monica Municipal Bus Lines, or something like that? Because "Buses of the Big Blue Bus" sounds kind of generic. ----DanTD (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would go for Category:Buses of Big Blue Bus; the brand doesn't seem to take the article in this case, and the brand is definitely better known than the official agency name. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ships by name and so called flat list[edit]

May I ask why these are now closed (today) given the fact that changes were made to both, by a runaway Administrator against consensus. These are live topics. Broichmore (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because your hounding of said admin on a highly visible noticeboard brought my attention to the long-stagnant CfD and your inappropriate behavior. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If its inappropriate then how should I be doing it? Broichmore (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, you need to drop the issue. This is not a battle you have to win; this is a collaborative media collection, and you need to acknowledge that sometimes you will not agree with every decision that other users make. There was no horrible miscarriage of justice or abuse of power here; there was merely an admin making a difficult CfD close that you disagree with. Continuing to push the issue - much less continuing to make baseless allegations - does infinitely more damage to Commons than any imperfect categorization scheme could do. I'm sorry that you are personally offended by a CfD close from 2018, but you need to move on. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just say this, as I see you've answered me on the Administrators' noticeboard...
I'm not offended by the closing these CfDs, Regarding the one in contention I'm offended by being assured the CfD process was supposed to be democratic not the opposite.
The real damage to commons is hiding files and work. This particular change diminished the project.
This case was clear-cut, he opened the CfD's, in the first place. The heaviest users in the cat were against his proposals, he ignored them and pushed his own agenda. This was not a power grab, but it was a mass move of 50,000 cats.
It's not vitriol to question being steam rolled. I'm not on a salary. It not baseless when its recorded. There are no baseless allegations, if you read it, you would see that. What initial discussion are you talking about, because I was there?
This wasn't closing a CfD, in the way its supposed to be, the consensus was no change to the original cat. Consensus on that had been reached.
He made the change, and refused point blank, not to budge.
Starting a second CfD specifically to allow further discussion of the move was a reasonable gesture, yes; why he did that I don't know, for he continued to show a deaf ear.
If this were a good move I would be elated. I don't make edits to hide files, and I made 1,000s into that cat. He's not even a ship regular.
No uninvolved admin wanted to take the time. Too much had written about it. It's difficult to find an Admin to do, when this is apparently complicated, even though actually dead simple.
I am simply seeking to get it altered back. I asked for his resignation or re-election, because he abused me and others in print.
As far as I'm aware the noticeboard is the appropriate mechanism to seek justice , and all that's happened is you've shut me down. How does that resolve anything. Please think again...
All that's happened so far is that some influential users have quit using the cat, I have not entered anything on it for 2 years. Broichmore (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pi.1415926535/Archive_8&oldid=541021170"