User talk:RP88/Archive 2

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

File deleted

Sorry I uploaded a copyrighted file. I didn't realise screenshots were conisdred copyrighted based off of File:DarkAppleMusiciOS14iPhone.jpg, you might want to do soemthing about that one too. Dmartin969 (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dmartin969: No problem, copyright can be complex, particularly when it comes to derivative works. The issue was criteria for speedy deletion #3, namely that derivative works based on non-free content (such as screenshots of non-free content) are non-free (excluding an exception or two, such as freedom of panorama). I'll also take a look at the file you reference. —RP88 (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Please participate in the Universal Code of Conduct consultation on Wikimedia Commons!

Dear RP88

Thank you for your hard work to create the sum of all knowledge that is freely sharable to every single human being across the world. As our diverse community grows, we need a guideline that will help all of our work collectively and constructively where everyone feels safe, welcomed, and part of a team. That is why the Wikimedia movement is working on establishing a global guideline called the Universal Code of Conduct, often referred to as UCoC.

After the months-long policy consultation, we have prepared a policy (available in many languages) that has been ratified by the Board of Trustees. We’re currently in the second phase of the process. During this round of consultation, we want to discuss the implementation of this policy. As a member of the functionary team of Wikimedia Commons, your opinion on enforcement is of great value. We want to hear from you on how this policy can be enforced on the Wikimedia Commons community and what might be needed to do so. There are a few enforcement questions so you can easily outline your answers based on them. Please do not hesitate to bring any more questions/challenges you think are not yet discussed.

The discussion is taking place on Commons:Universal Code of Conduct consultation. You can also share your thoughts by replying to this message (Please ping me so I get notified), posting your message on my talk page. I am aware that some thoughts cannot be expressed publicly, so you can always share your opinion by emailing me as well.

As a valued member of the Commons community, please share your thoughts, ideas, and experiences that relate to UCoC. Let us know what needs to be improved so we can build a more friendly and cooperative space to increase editor engagement and retention of new users.

Wikimedia projects are governed by you. So, it is you who needs to step up to ensure a safe, comfortable, and pleasant working environment.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Please take a short survey regarding UCoC

Hello RP88,

I would like to inform you that we now have a survey in place to take part in the UCoC consultation. It is not a long one and should take less than 10 minutes to complete. You can take the survey even if you have already participated in the on-wiki consultation. It has a different set of questions and allows you to participate anonymously and privately.

As a member of the Commons functionaries, your opinion is especially essential. Please click here to participate in the survey.

You are still welcome to participate in the on-wiki discussions. If you prefer you can have your say by sending me an email. You can also drop me an email if you want to have a one-to-one chat.

Thank you for your participation! Wikitanvir (WMF) 13:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Лицензия свободная

Здравствуйте. Фотографии в свободной лицензии, с сайта указанного под изображениями. Сайт и телеканал Футбол 1. I AM UKR. Iliya Kushkin Official (talk) 06:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Iliya Kushkin Official: Which photo are you talking about? It is good that the photos that you've recently uploaded included a link to where you got them, however I can't find any indication that these sites (for example footballua.tv) release their photos under a free license (see COM:NETCOPYRIGHT). Even if these sites did release their content under a free license, it seems unlikely that they actually own the copyright to any of the photos they post. For example, you uploaded File:Апывар.jpg with a source page URL [1] which contained the photo URL [2]. However, footballua.tv is not the copyright owner of that photo. That photo was not created by footballua.tv, the photographer was Robert Perry, who has not licensed it under a free license (see COM:L), he licenses it via a non-free license at Getty Images ID #1326148846. —RP88 (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

RP88 - https://footballua.tv/rules https://euro2020.football.ua - низ сайта Я про все фотографии, и про три мои последниие, что Вы удалили. Iliya Kushkin Official (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers to the terms of use for those two sites. However, all works on Wikimedia Commons are required to be released under a free license by their copyright holder. For the example I used above, File:Апывар.jpg Robert Perry is the copyright holder (since he was the photographer), not footballua.tv, so we can't use that photo without permission from Robert Perry. Even if footballua.tv is willing to let others reuse photos that they personally created (I don't read Russian so I can't really tell if their license meets the requirements of COM:L), that doesn't mean that everything they post belongs to them. Perhaps you can find a Russian speaker on Commons or Wikipedia that is experienced on uploading to Commons who can explain the intricacies of copyright and Commons copyright policy to you. —RP88 (talk) 06:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Я не буду спорить тут, но Вы же понимаю, что подобное отношение к Википедии со стороны авторского права идиотизм, ведь мы некоммерческая структура, в любом случаи спасибо. Iliya Kushkin Official (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Commons is a media file repository where all of the files are free for reuse for any purpose, including commercial use. If an image is not free for commercial reuse it can't be uploaded to Commons. Some of the Wikipedia projects (such as English Wikipedia) do accept "Fair Use" images that can only be used by non-commercial institutions, but these kinds of images are not permitted on Commons. See Commons:Fair use. —RP88 (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
@Iliya Kushkin Official: From Commons:Fair use/ru it looks like you might be able to directly upload one or more of these photos to Russian Wikipedia instead of Commons:

А вот русская Википедия (как и английская) допускает загрузку материалов для «добросовестного использования» при условии соответствия их принятым там критериям добросовестного использования. Если Вы считаете, что Ваш несвободный файл соответствует этим критериям, и можете написать подробное обоснование добросовестного использования, то можете рассмотреть вариант загрузки этого файла в русский раздел Википедии. Учтите, что файлы, загруженные прямо в один из языковых разделов Википедии, могут использоваться только там.

—RP88 (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Most likely they will be deleted. You can prevent this by tracking down the copyright holder for one or more of these photos and either determining that they've already given permission to distribute their photo under the terms of a free license (such as one of the approved Creative Commons licenses) or by asking them for permission. This can be challenging, which is why most people upload photos to Commons that they took themselves, that are in the public domain because the copyright term has expired, or where it is easy to see that the photographer has given permission. —RP88 (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For your swift help and assistance at File:2 Weeks In Italy - A Cinematic Travel Film.webm -

Reading my request back it didn't make as much sense as I thought it did but by some miracle you understood it and moved the file etc so again just wanted to say thank you very much for your help today it was very much appreciated :)
Take care and stay safe RP88, Kind Regards, –Davey2010Talk 22:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind note of encouragement. —RP88 (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome :), Happy editing, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Olympic images from Ukraine

Hi, I’m planning to upload ca. 500 images of Ukraine at the 2020 Summer Olympics under CC 4.0 of gov.ua (see copyright indication at bottom website). Before I make a same mistake as with the Argentine images, please let me know if you see any issues. I searched for images at Getty but can’t find them somewhere else. SportsOlympic (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@SportsOlympic: From what I can tell, all most of the photos have a watermark in the lower right-hand corner, and it appears to me the watermark indicates that these photos originate from noc-ukr.org (Ukraine National Olympic Committee), not sport.gov.ua. That watermark probably qualifies as an exclusion from the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license per the "якщо не зазначено інше" ("unless otherwise noted") caveat that sport.gov.ua includes in their CC license blurb. Unfortunately it does not appear to me that noc-ukr.org has a CC license like sport.gov.ua, instead, at the bottom it has "© 2021. Всі права захищено. Використання матеріалів цього сайту можливе тільки з посиланням на джерело." I don't read Ukrainian, but from Google Translate I don't think that meets the criteria at COM:L (but you might ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright for a wider set of opinions). If it were me, I probably would try contacting sport.gov.ua and see if they have permission from the Ukraine National Olympic Committee to relicense the noc-ukr.org watermarked photos under the CC-BY-4.0 license (see COM:VRT for the process for memorializing permission obtained via e-mail in a way that Commons will accept). Or alternatively (or even simultaneously!), contact noc-ukr.org and see if they are willing to explicitly release their photos under a CC-BY-4.0 or CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. —RP88 (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
@SportsOlympic: I noticed that a few minutes after I replied you began to upload photos from sport.gov.ua with the noc-ukr.org watermark. Did you somehow determine that noc-ukr.org photos are CC licensed? —RP88 (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
HiRP88, sorry I just see now your message. Yes at the bottom of each page, for instance at here is written: "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license". In Ukrainian language is written: "Весь контент доступний за ліцензією Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, якщо не зазначено інше" that translates as: "All content is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, unless otherwise noted". Hurrayy!! SportsOlympic (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but the photos with the noc-ukr.org watermark (e.g. File:Ukraine_at_the_2020_Summer_Olympics_-_(24_July)_(1).jpg) are "otherwise noted". —RP88 (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
A, wait, now I understand what you mean, you mean that noc-ukr.org (Ukraine National Olympic Committee) is not the same as sport.gov.ua . That's a good point. Yes, I will send them an email. I will stop uploading and let you know. Regards, SportsOlympic (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth, http://noc-ukr.org says "all rights reserved" so I'm guessing the images published by the Olympic Committee can't be uploaded here, but I guess we'll wait for you to hear back. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

User:RP88/common.js?

Hi RP88, this file is currently (likely after your recent edits) listed in 3 speedy-deletion-categories. Do you really want to have it deleted? --Túrelio (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Túrelio: Nope! Thanks for the heads up. It looks like categories from templates mentioned inside Javascript strings were being output by the JS content model. I've fixed it by defanging the templates. —RP88 (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I am messaging you because a contest for a sound logo for Wikimedia is being developed and your opinion as a Wikimedia Commons admin is appreciated. My team would like to know if it is possible for the top finalist sound logos in the contest to have attribution temporarily hidden from public view until all the votes are final? The idea is to let the public judge the sound logo contestants based on the merit of the logo, not the person or people who made it. Again, any feedback is appreciated.

Thank you,

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

missed?

Hi RP88, did you eventually miss to delete File:León de Greiff.jpg after closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:León de Greiff.jpg? --Túrelio (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Good eye! I did indeed forget to delete the actual file after closing that DR. Thanks for the heads up. —RP88 (talk) 08:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:PD-Old-assumed

Hi RP88,

I have seen the changes you had done in the template. Nice work. Since I have planned to prepare a new {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} (you can see my first sketches hardcoded in my sandbox, a few remarks.

  1. maybe the wording at least some works of this author were created over 140 years ago (or the author was born over 160 years ago) would be more appropriate? {{PD-old-assumed/text}}
  2. since both templates {{PD-old-assumed}} and {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} would use the same code, it would be better to make them more flexible:

I hope you accept my proposals. If not feel free to revert my changes made in {{PD-old-assumed/core}}

Regards Draco flavus (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Draco flavus: For various reasons (categorization, template loops, bot processing) it is preferred to carefully control the overlap in the templates between US license templates (such as {{tl|PD-US-expired), source country templates (such as {{PD-old-auto}}), and "both" templates (such as {{PD-old-auto-expired}}). In principle I don't have an objection to {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} and I am more than willing to assist you in building what you want. You currently can get the effect, if not necessarily your desired appearance, of {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} with "{{PD-two|PD-old-assumed|PD-old-auto-expired}}" or "{{PD-old-assumed}}{{PD-US-expired}}". Take a look at some examples at User:RP88/PD-old-assumed examples. I think you desire a version of {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} that is comparable to the minimalism of {{PD-old-auto-expired}} (see example 5) that removes all warnings, but we could create a template that does #3 or #4 immediately. I would be happy to build a version of {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} that looked like something like #5 updated for PD-old-assumed, but it wouldn't match the community approved template. The approval of the {{PD-old-assumed}} was somewhat tortious — I'm a little concerned about removing the "countries with longer copyright terms and no rule of the shorter term" warning that was part of the community approved language. I'm going to revert your change for now, but take a look at User:RP88/PD-old-assumed examples and let me know what you think. —RP88 (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks for your answer. The desired version is (now) the last one on my Sandbox page. The proposal for the voting was actually "A formulation could be: "If the copyright situation of a file is based on the date of death of the author, but we do not know when the author has died, we assume the file to be PD if at least the lenght of copyright protection + 60 years have passed since the latest possible date of creation of the work. (e.g. 130 years if copyright is based on de PMA+70 rule). If we know of an older work of the same author, we base the situation on the date of creation of that older work. If we do know the year of birth of the author, we use the year in which he/she reached the age of 20 in the calculation instead of the year of creation of the work." Doesn't it back the proposed text. Regards Draco flavus (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@Draco flavus: That was one of the proposals, but was not accepted, the result in the closure was only "I am closing this as a consensus of 120 years.". The closed version of the discussion can be read at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/03#Cut-off_date_for_the_PD-old_template. As part of the closure the discussion was directed to Commons talk:Cut-off date for PD-old files for working out details, which resulted in the creation of the current {{PD-old-assumed}}. My recent changes left the copyright logic and text intact, but conformed the template to be more inline with similar templates like {{PD-old-auto}}. Let me see what I can do about making a {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} that looks like what you want, derived from {{PD-old-assumed}} with shared resources in much the same was as {{PD-old-auto-expired}} is derived from {{PD-old-auto}} with shared resources. —RP88 (talk) 05:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I've updated {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} to be very similar to the last example on your sandbox page. Your existing work was very close to the final template. {{PD-old-assumed}} and {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} now share translations at Template:PD-old-assumed-text, Template:PD-US-expired-text, and Template:PD-old-warning-text, but don't commingle their layout templates. —RP88 (talk) 06:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi RI88,

many thanks for your help. I am not so familiar with the teplates on Commons. The main time I spend on Polish Wikisource. I have preapared a short cheat sheet for our users (s:pl:User:Draco flavus/brudnopis77). Even if it is in Polish you can certainly understand the first table there.
In our project we accept the works that are both in Poland and in the USA in the PD (sometimes also in the country of origin if it is a translation).
So in the scope of our interest are mostly these -expired templates.
Regarding the copyright laws we are actually more conservative than the general rules on Commons.
We accept the old-assumed works after 140 years (assumed published when 20 or older, lived not longer than 90 years). So the PD-old-assumed-expired licence does not cover 100% all cases but I suppose is good enough for us. Once more, many thanks and regards Draco flavus (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

PD-old-auto and used-with-US

I think this is actually broken (or I am very confused; or probably both). :)

It'll show the US warning if either used-with-US is missing or empty, or if the number of years since deathyear is less than 100. That is, if (A || B) {show_warning();}. But the logic should really be that if there's a separate license tag for the US, this template should never show a warning. Primarily because the warning literally says "you need a US license tag" so once one is present the warning becomes nonsensical. But also because there is no obvious connection between the number of years since the author's death and the need to provide a US license tag. Even in {{PD-old-presumed}} territory (which is pub + 120, not pma. 100) you still need to provide a US license tag.

  US = true US = false
deathyear < 100
deathyear > 100

I am also uncertain where this number of 100 comes from? Longest normal US copyright term is pub. + 95. PD-old-presumed is pub. + 120. Longest known international copyright term is pma. 120. Typical modern copyright term is pma. 70. And then of course there are the myriad arbitrary minimum terms like 2038, 2042 etc. But on the flip side there are tons of works that expired after pub. + 28 years due to non-renewal or similar.

My suggestion is to either remove the "pma. 100" part of the logic, or, if it's needed for something I'm not seeing, nest it inside the "missing or empty used-with-US" case. Xover (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Xover: No, it's correct, but I can see why it is confusing. The awkward construction using De Morgan's law is to due to the way the template parser handles defaults / empty parameters / logic / coercion to boolean. The code in question is hiding the warning section only if used-with-US is true and X>=100. This is because the warning section text (from {{PD-old-warning-text}}) can actually contain two different warnings, and so the warning section is needed if either will be output. The two warnings are the "need a US tag" warning and the "countries with longer copyright terms without rule of the shorter term" warning. You can see an example of both pieces of warning text at {{PD-old-70}}. In the implementation of {{PD-old-warning-text}} the "need a US tag" warning is suppressed when used-with-US is set and the "countries with longer terms without rule of the shorter term" warning is suppressed when the number of years since the death of the author is >= 100 (because there is no country with a longer term than pma+100). —RP88 (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Ah, oh, I see. I had indeed not accounted for the "longer terms exist" warning (well, or more generally, that there are multiple possible warnings). And it doesn't help that the template parser / ParserFunctions kinda forces you to put orthogonal logic in the same #ifexpr (Lua would be much clearer here). But, setting aside my aversion to having symbols plastered all over for a normal state of affairs, that makes sense then. Thanks for the explanation (and apologies for the noise). Xover (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Very badly misbehaving bot

It was doing much the same (on another IP) for a few hours on other pages yesterday, and the day before too. They tried to run it on en.wiki, but it hit too many filters to do much damage. All the IPs are Rostelecom addresses. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Its back on 46.48.146.118 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
They will keep hopping around on the /17 subnet. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I've blocked the second IP. —RP88 (talk) 07:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
@Mako001: Thanks for the additional details. I'll try to keep an eye on it while I'm online. —RP88 (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Ive asked for a global block of the /17. They've been at this for weeks using other IPs, accross at least 3 different wikis. (Commons, enwiki and wikidata) Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Need your input on a policy impacting gadgets and UserJS

Dear interface administrator,

This is Samuel from the Security team and I hope my message finds you well.

There is an ongoing discussion on a proposed policy governing the use of external resources in gadgets and UserJS. The proposed Third-party resources policy aims at making the UserJS and Gadgets landscape a bit safer by encouraging best practices around external resources. After an initial non-public conversation with a small number of interface admins and staff, we've launched a much larger, public consultation to get a wider pool of feedback for improving the policy proposal. Based on the ideas received so far, the proposed policy now includes some of the risks related to user scripts and gadgets loading third-party resources, best practices for gadgets and UserJS developers, and exemptions requirements such as code transparency and inspectability.

As an interface administrator, your feedback and suggestions are warmly welcome until July 17, 2023 on the policy talk page.

Have a great day!

Samuel (WMF), on behalf of the Foundation's Security team 23:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit request for Module:Roman

Hi! Could I ask you to take a look at my edit request for Module:Roman at Module talk:Roman#Edit request: add function p.Arabic? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 06:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RP88/Archive_2&oldid=858892543"