User talk:Alexis Jazz/Archives/2019/June

Proposal post

Apologies for the spam in multiple locations. I thought that there might be people on commons who might not have come across it on meta. I was advised to try to post across projects (and within wikipedia, several wikiprojects) to make as diverse a group of wikimedians were aware as possible. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 12:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: it seems WikiJournal is not of any particular interest to Commons. Posting on a noticeboard about science subjects on Wikipedia seems sensible, but Commons? If there is a genuine need to inform all projects, there is m:MassMessage. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 12:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I hadn't heard of m:MassMessage. I've also added a couple of notes to make clear the relevance to commons (which I should have done in the original post). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 23:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Haroldoath.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Haroldoath.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Castillo blanco (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Not mine. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 09:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Flickr

Hola, no sé qué expresión regular estás usando, pero aquí te estás cargando la licencia. De hecho, no entiendo cuál es el propósito de tus sustituciones. Si el bot de Flickr no fue capaz de determinar la licencia (porque suelen ser recortes), decirle al bot que revise de nuevo dará el mismo resultado, con el añadido de que hemos perdido la información de licencia. Un saludo --Discasto _talk 06:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Discasto: You forgot English? I reduced the backlog by approximately 5,000 files. I'd say requesting a new review was useful. Continue at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Flickr Review needing humans backlog. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 09:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I simply made a mistake and thought you're another person. Glad to know that the mistake was made only in the remaining files. It's not that much. --Discasto _talk 09:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Discasto: about 142 files, and I can fix it. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 09:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Abdullah Mukwaya (cropped).jpg

Copyright status: File:Abdullah Mukwaya (cropped).jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Abdullah Mukwaya (cropped).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, fixed. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 00:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Cheating the Upload Wizard

Please stop doing that and advising others to do that.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: No. I learned it from an admin who shared it publicly and it's not a secret. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 15:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

What are you waiting for?

I see your proposals in the incubator and wonder why you're not publishing them to the community, the current batch of proposals all look ready and are independent from other proposals enough to be able to be voted on without any prerequisites being implemented first. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: I've been away for a while. Several proposals I needed to think about, and often I'll later adjust them. For the last proposal (UploadWizardConfig.maxUploads) I'm waiting for your further assessment. I assume you slept? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: So what are you waiting for? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 15:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It looks "publication ready" if you ask me, it's a very simple straight to the point proposal so I don't see much what can be improved. That being said I expect some backlash from people who already want to limit what users with fewer rights can do, but I'm sure that there are plenty of regular uploaders who don't want to maintain an unnecessary Flickr account to spam Commons with because of how broken the current upload process is. If in the future those numbers will need to be higher we'll hear it but your proposal is a leap in the right direction. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hoe kan ik duizenden bestanden met "@InSource:[BRON]" tegelijkertijd bewerken?

Ik heb jou wel massale verwijderingsverzoeken van een groot aantal mediabestanden afkomstig van dezelfde bron zien creëren. Ik heb een ander probleem, ik upload al jaren bestanden in het openbaar domein (of is het "publiek domein"?) van een website maar het zijn er nu wel een aantal duizend en vroeg mij af of er manier was hoe ik al deze bestanden afkomstig van dezelfde website in een onderhoudscategorie (puur voor administratieve doeleinden en overzichtelijkheid) kon zetten.

Wat ik dus wil is de naam van de bron zoeken, geen limitatie van maar 500 (vijfhonderd) afbeeldingen per zoektocht hebben en alleen maar bestanden met dezelfde website selecteren. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: bij een reguliere zoekopdracht kan je het getal in de url handmatig ophogen tot (iirc) 2000 per pagina en dan cat-a-lot draaien. Voor nog meer moet je VFC starten. (schakel het laden van thumbnails uit) Dan kan je wikicode (zoals een categorie) toevoegen met de append optie. Of dat gaat lukken op jouw tablet/telefoon.. Tja. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Wittstock UDR

Seems like that particular UDR has stalled a bit. It was deleted before Commons applied PD-Art worldwide. Only complication is that it is apparently really difficult to find who the artist of that was even though it looks quite old. Abzeronow (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: could be cropped from a larger, colorized from a black-and-white painting, misfiled, or it just never had much of an online presence. I've tried, I can't find it. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

File:IMG-20170208-WA0016.jpg

File:IMG-20170208-WA0016.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!

Yann (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Not mine, and should be kept. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 09:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your expertise

Hi Alexis!

I wanted to thank you for your thoroughly thoughts on Commons:Administrators/Requests/JoKalliauer. I think it is much easier to support someone than to oppose(most people don't want to be the bad guy). In my opinion, you wrote the three most valuable comments on this page. Also I talked to User:Sarang before requesting Administrator-rights, but still I was surprised why he wrote such a positive answer, because I think no one saw more of my mistakes and I think none file-reverted more of them than he. (Those Mistakes are not related to license). And Sarang is a very high-skilled person, I don't know anyone who can create SVGs in Texteditor that well, so I value his opinion quite much. (I also value your opinion definitly more than an average admin.)

We have slightly different borders of Threshold of originality, and there is no clear cut, but I would argue that we account a similar amount as suitable for copyright. However on Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Pikachu_Pillows.jpg you made the best arguments, therefore it is fine for me. If this picture will get deleted, I would not crop the photo, because I would consider it as out of scope, and low quality. (Except you think different, it's up on you.) And thank you for creating Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pikachu.

Because you gave by far the best answers: I have a question regarding "no FoP for artistic works in Japan" : If there would be COM:FOP, and if we assume that those Pikachu's are not authored by the copyright-holder: Then those panel's are copyright-violations, and therefore it should anyway not be on commons?

Since you criticized that I doubt the license on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikimedia movement DE EN.pdf: If I'm unclear with the license is it OK to mark the file with a deletion-request? (Deciding on a DR is something different) Or should DR only be started if I'm quite sure that there is a copyright-violation? What should I do if I find a copyright-violation, but I know it is licensed under CC-BY-SA and could be used. Is it my duty to add missing authors/sources/... ? Is it ok, to ask the unloader to catch up those missing items? If it is a newbie, of course I would help her/him, but what should I do if the answer is "I don't care". (In the case of Wikimedia movement it was "Save me and your time, leave it to the Foundation. The picture has also been used by the director in her slides, nothing will happen.")

Last week bureaucrat User:Ellin Beltz made three deletion-requests (regarding me): Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ventral_view_of_turtle_with_respiratory_muscles.svg, Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sumerian_figurine.png and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Pikachu_Pillows.jpg. I know your opinion on the last one, which is IMHO much substantiated than all the other comments before. The first two cases are {{FakePDF}}-extractions (similar to the {{FakeSVG}}-extractions you did). User:Ellin Beltz decided to mark the extracted versions, but not the {{FakePDF}}-source with a DR, also I named in both cases the {{FakePDF}}-source in the source-field. In one case she decided to withdraw the request, also the {{FakePDF}} does not look like {{Own}}. Therefore I marked the {{FakePDF}} with a DR. In the other case it is about a Raster-image which is not visible by Wikimedia-Renderer. I'm not sure if this Raster image should be hidden or it is a Render-bug, however Firefox and Inkscape render this image, and can therefore be extracted. In my opinion if Sumerian figurine.pdf would be correct licensed, there is no reason for the DR on Sumerian figurine.png. But of course we can argue that the Raster-image is most likely a COPY-Vio in Sumerian figurine.pdf and therefore the image has to be removed from the pdf, with a versiondeletion. The original uploader (User_talk:Ajaulwes) did not reply to my question last sunday (inactive account since 2017), so I also don't expect any answer if we start a DR, and I just fond a similar image published under CC-BY-NC-SA. In my opinion the reason for the DR might be wrong, but I assume that both {{FakePDF}}-sources might be a COPY-Vio, leading to deletion of the extracted images. Since I value your opinion quite much I would like to hear your thoughts.

Jacques Drillon.pdf got deleted in January after I marked it with missing source. However Jacques Drillon.png had this FakePDF as source, but it was not deleted till last week, but only because I marked it with missing source. Is on commons a tool to find if any file that quotes e.g. Jacques Drillon.pdf as source?

Now I would do a DR instead of No_source_since, but when should I use No_source_since and when a DR?

PS: Sorry for my typing-mistakes. I am suffering from dyslexia. And yesterday I worked till 22:00 (academia/PhD) and today I had an important presentation where I had to get up early, therefore there I had less time therfore there were even more typos than usual.

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 20:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Because you gave by far the best answers: I have a question regarding "no FoP for artistic works in Japan" : If there would be COM:FOP, and if we assume that those Pikachu's are not authored by the copyright-holder: Then those panel's are copyright-violations, and therefore it should anyway not be on commons?

@JoKalliauer: Correct, but I assume they are authorized, because there is no way they could get away with this without permission.

Since you criticized that I doubt the license on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikimedia movement DE EN.pdf: If I'm unclear with the license is it OK to mark the file with a deletion-request?

I think license reviewers (and by extension, administrators) should have a nose for license laundering. When you linked pngimg.com for a satellite image, you didn't demonstrate that. Which is totally fine, but not for a license reviewer. Starting a DR because there is an unsourced satellite image is fine.

What should I do if I find a copyright-violation, but I know it is licensed under CC-BY-SA and could be used. Is it my duty to add missing authors/sources/... ? Is it ok, to ask the unloader to catch up those missing items? If it is a newbie, of course I would help her/him, but what should I do if the answer is "I don't care".

It's great if you are willing to fix the license and it's encouraged, but it's not your duty. Asking the uploader is also fine. If they don't care and you don't want to fix it yourself, starting a DR is an option.

In the other case it is about a Raster-image which is not visible by Wikimedia-Renderer. I'm not sure if this Raster image should be hidden or it is a Render-bug, however Firefox and Inkscape render this image, and can therefore be extracted. In my opinion if Sumerian figurine.pdf would be correct licensed, there is no reason for the DR on Sumerian figurine.png. But of course we can argue that the Raster-image is most likely a COPY-Vio in Sumerian figurine.pdf and therefore the image has to be removed from the pdf, with a versiondeletion.

Ellin Beltz is not perfect. File:Sumerian figurine.pdf is a traced version of the photograph from the book page you extracted. That explains why the book page was in there in the first place. Technically the traced image is a derivate work. But being a traced image and the object being too old for copyright protection, the only thing left from the photo is the angle. Nothing more. A 3D-model of the object would be fine. Just a camera angle can't be protected by copyright. The source on the traced image should explain all this though.. I am unsure about the turtle image. Could be own work, I just don't know.

Jacques Drillon.pdf got deleted in January after I marked it with missing source. However Jacques Drillon.png had this FakePDF as source, but it was not deleted till last week, but only because I marked it with missing source. Is on commons a tool to find if any file that quotes e.g. Jacques Drillon.pdf as source?

Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Jacques_Drillon.pdf

insource:Jacques_Drillon.pdf

Now I would do a DR instead of No_source_since, but when should I use No_source_since and when a DR?

There are no hard rules for that. Personally I'd say, if there is a chance a properly licensed source could be found, start a DR. For example, when there is a broken or missing Flickr link. If the user entered "internet" or "reddit" (no link, just that), no_source.

You're welcome btw. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

No one is perfect, and certainly none of us who handle dozens to hundreds of images will be 100% perfect 100% of the time. That's why the process has give and take in it, and discussion. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

This disscussion shows that I have to catch up with expertise. (Thanks to all your well-considered answers above.)

What do you think about International Pokémon logo.svg (regarding Com:ToO)? It is more complex than the examples on COM:TOO Japan.

Since ToO is not that obvious: Do you think it makes sence to make a category/template >>proved PD ineligible<< (maybe only added by license reviewers, or alternativly have to have at least two users that sign it) and a category/template >>check if PD ineligible<<. And what do you think about a category in the english wikipedia, for showing simple fair-use-images that are just above the ToO. (german: Kleine_Münze)

Sometimes I am fullfilling a grafic-request, and I just extract a svg-logo from a pdf and want to keep the license-check to others or at least would like to get checked if it is really PD ineligible, therefore I would really like >>check if PD ineligible<<(template or category), without doing a request each time at Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen or somewhere similar.

Is it possible to view thumbnails of all subcategroies of Pokémon creatures, without checking each subcategory seperatly?

I would like to have an experinced "Mentor" like you, who I could learn from, if I have questions: Therefore I hope it is ok for you, to bug you with questions (even they are not all related to your post).

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 19:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure you can bug me, no problem. Pokémon logo: I just wrote User talk:Alexis Jazz/TOO for PD-textlogo. (I meant to make that note for a while anyway) Proved-PD-ineligible: I'd rather think bigger. Categories for images that had their license checked. So many users upload images of banknotes with a Creative Commons license, use {{PD-old-70}} without providing any information that aligns with that license or {{PD-US-not renewed}} without properly checking if it's correct. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@JoKalliauer: I forgot: Help:FastCCI. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

COM:AN

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators noticeboard#Threathening / disruptive behaviour by admin. Didn't even ping. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC).

Thanks for the heads-up!! - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit Summary

When editing a page on Commons there is a small field labeled "Edit Summary" or "Summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary: 

 

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the Edit Summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the Edit Summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's name in the Edit Summary field - please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you.  — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 18:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware, and if WMF would offer canned edit summaries to users who aren't mobile I'd add edit summaries more often. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 18:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Removing own photos

My worst mistake was trying to colaborate with wikipedia, Just remove my Photos and editions I Will never share with you my OWN work. Im out of this waste of time!!!! Reneh3790 (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

This is about Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Reneh3790.

@Reneh3790: you have uploaded a ton of photos you found on the internet and claimed they are all your own work. Even if you were to upload some actual own work, it would be impossible to tell and we would need OTRS permission for that. Please read COM:L. It is you who wasted our time by uploading images with false "own work" claims. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 18:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

claiming things as own

I personally do not like that people claim things as own, if they have a unspecific source (like just flickr), a missing permission; ok it is incomplete but not wrong, and that can be IMHO easier verified/checked. But sadly I have the feeling that missing source/permission, will lead faster to a deletion than claiming own.

I think the option >>This file is my own work<< and >>This file is not my own work<< should not be destinglished in Special:UploadWizard. If someone who does not understand anything about licensing, sees this options might choose >>This file is my own work<<, since it is easier, and the user might did smaller changes (cropping, changeing brightness,...) and therfore chooses >>This file is my own work<< out of simplicity.

I would remove the option >>This file is my own work<< and if it is own they should write >>Own<< or >>Created with Inkscape<< or maybe addittionaly offer some standard texts like {{Self-photographed}} or {{Created with Inkscape}} in the source-field. As far as I know Created-with-templates are currently not in the source-tag, since they are not a source, but also create-with-Templates can indicate that a file is self-created. In the >>Author(s)<< field they can write there own real name or User-name, or whatsoever.

I think it is better if a field is kept empty, and someone will notice this problem, than nobody notice a own-claim.

I think we can't really resent somone from claiming own, because licensing is for an average not-Wikimedia something completly unknown. (I tried to explain Licensing to some non-wikimedias, and noticed that they know "nothing". They do not understand copy-right (of the photo, aswell of the object), they do not know about personal-rights/trademark-rights,... Some might only know that there exists some streaming-sites, which are illegal, but I assume some won't know that they are not allowed to use a random picture they found in google, since google is a trustworthy search.) And then they get overwhelm by the options of Special:UploadWizard, and just choose the easiest one, without knowing that they can be sued.

What do you think about removing this option >>This file is my own work<< (at least for new users)? And if you think this might be intelligent, where should I report it? (phab:?; meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2019?)

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 20:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@JoKalliauer: I generally agree (though for experienced users some option has to remain to claim own work easily), however, I suspect WMF won't agree. An even bigger problem are cross-wiki uploads (generally over half of them are copyvio), it has been suggested to simply shut down that fucking shit entirely (it causes Commons way too much work, it's just a waste) but WMF simply refuses.

Changes to the UploadWizard that WMF disagrees with are probably just not possible. Maybe you should bug Jimbo about it. Seriously, I don't know. You have my support in this though. For what it's worth. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I did not know Commons:Cross-wiki_media_upload_tool till now.

If WMF decides against the comunity, then WMF should 1)take the resposibility and 2)take the costs of the work.

If it causes Voluteers too much work, you might should write a phab:-Ticket (and make a userbox), even if it get deprecated, there is one place to collect supporters.

If the community thinks we do not want Commons:Cross-wiki_media_upload_tool and is too much work and WMF does not react, then the community should try to ignore those cross-wiki-uploads. If nobody check them, nobody delete them, WMF has to take resposibility about it. When the number of sues because of copyright-violations at wikimedia increase because of cross-wiki-uploads, then WMF will have to react.

I support to deactivate Commons:Cross-wiki_media_upload_tool, but I do not really care about it that much, because I did not know them.

I only get angry that they have time to implement such GUI-Upload, but meta:Community_Wishlist_Survey_2019/Archive/Option_to_embed_SVGs_as_SVGs >>is too big for the Community Tech team to take on<<

Removing the own-possibility will lead to one click less (not click onw/not own any more). (The default parameter could be set to source={{Own}} and author=Special:MyPage. Default parameter is allready included if I upload something with own, you can specify your name and it per default takes what you used last time, first time it is empty, and the uses Special:MyPage instead.)

Who is Jimbo? I can't find him at Special:Contributions/Jimbo~commonswiki, Special:Contributions/Jimbo nor https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/p/Jimbo/ .

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 16:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@JoKalliauer:

Who is Jimbo?

— Johannes Kalliauer

Here's Jimbo, and his talk page.

WMF doesn't take the responsiblity for checking cross-wiki uploads, and because cross-wiki uploads essentially are a thing on other wikis (cross-wiki uploads from Commons are possible but rare), we can't vote them away. Wikipedias could probably vote them away locally, but they have no reason to because the shit lands on our plate, not theirs.

"When the number of sues because of copyright-violations at wikimedia increase because of cross-wiki-uploads, then WMF will have to react."

If we stop policing those uploads, it won't matter. WMF has to comply with the DMCA, thanks to the safe harbor provision they'll never get sued. DMCA takedowns are quite rare, only 4 this year. While many cross-wiki uploads are copyright violations, very few copyright holders could actually be bothered to file a DMCA takedown request. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Taking selfie with referee.jpg

File:Taking selfie with referee.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: The work is protected Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Mhhossein ^talk 05:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: this wasn't made for Tasnim? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 05:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Taking selfie with referee.jpg

File:Taking selfie with referee.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!

— Racconish ^💬 06:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Same file as the Copyvionote above. Not my upload, and if this is copyvio it's far from obvious. It has a license review, even. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 06:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

It has a license review, even...but the reviewer himself nominated it later. So what?--Mhhossein ^talk 10:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I always comment on my DRs. Usually they're for files I have overwritten. I don't want anyone to look at my talk page archives and think "oh noes, a serial copyiolator!" - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 15:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I see Alexis. That's great you care about such things, and no, I don't think your page would give others a negative impression. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent deletion requests from PaunchStevenson

About Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Greg,_Scott_Thomson,_and_Lanza_at_the_Chiller_Theatre_Expo_2017.jpg and the related spree - I guess it's OK that you edited out the various fans, but it really wasn't necessary. Thousands of our images of celebrities are celebrities posing with fans. The old revisions certainly shouldn't be removed from the image history by being placed in Category:Media with unacceptable data in old versions; they're perfectly acceptable. --GRuban (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@GRuban: okay, I guess the category wasn't necessary. Legally we could probably keep them, I agree. PaunchStevenson was targeting very specifically Greg and Lanza. In one DR he even said only the fan on the right (Lanza) didn't give permission while Greg was also in the picture. So I assume PaunchStevenson is either the photographer (Rob DiCaterino), Greg, Lanza or someone related. Considering those fans are generally out of our scope anyway and this plausible complaint having been made, I went ahead and removed them. But indeed, legally we probably wouldn't have to do anything.

And yes, I made sure to ping them 15 times. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 01:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Nightshooter case

Hi Alexis, there is neither need nor justification for personal insults or loosing civilty, even I one finds a behaviour of somebody egregious or a like. --Túrelio (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Túrelio: I was going to edit it, but I see you already had. If I had said "Marco and Larry are not nice persons", would that also have been problematic? Because that's what it came down to. I also think all copyright trolls are bastards, but that's just my opinion, far from limited to Marco and Larry. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 11:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

"not nice" would likely not have triggered criticism/action. Nevertheless, it's still ad hominem. Why not just criticize, even harshly, their behaviour? --Túrelio (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Túrelio: yes, that would have been better. "bastards" was more of a shortcut to do that. When someone does something shitty, colloquially one can say "what a bastard". That doesn't mean the person as a whole is a bastard, in fact they may be very nice in person. It only pertains to the shitty behavior in question. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 13:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

As Túrelio pointed it, it is advisable to limit yourself to criticizing other users contributions and not their person. Saying somebody is a bastard is not appropriate. — Racconish ^💬 14:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

Alexis, you may find it helpful to read the well-known essay How to disagree. Here's his conclusion:

But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don't have to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don't want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way. If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier. Most people don't really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can't help it.

While the essay focuses on disagreeing rather than just expressing your opinion, the same rules apply. If one frequently operates at the bottom of the hierarchy, one comes across as mean, angry, ignorant and uncivil, which tends to put people off wanting to engage or cooperate, and just distracts from the topic at hand. In the referred discussion, I think everyone was united in viewing copyright trolling as an immoral way to behave. Your personal attacks distracted from people making their arguments about what to do about the images or the account, and put people off participating who might otherwise. -- Colin (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Converting images and copying description-page

Hi I think you processed several {{FakeSVG}}-extractions.

I have no problems to extract JPG/PNG from PDFs/SVGs automatically (if it only conatain one image).

But the work is to

1. copy the old descriptionpage and add the FakePDF/FakeSVG-source
2. wait till it is uploaded
3. add at the original source that it is replaced
4. replace all occurrences in wikiversum

Can you recommend me how to do it efficient?

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 18:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@JoKalliauer: It's a complete pain in the butt. If the files are uploaded with the exact same filenames (but different extension), the description page can be copied. (upload the files with whatever description, it would be replaced anyway) This is a very ugly process that I'd rather do myself, because it's easy to screw up. Some similar tricks allow adding a superseded or similar note at the original source. Replacing all occurences can be done by CommonsDelinker.

When I say "ugly", it's only minimally less ugly than my book reader. That shouldn't even be able to exist. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I did the extraction with PDF Image Extraction Wizard

1. I uploaded the extracted files from Category:Files_with_inappropriate_PDF_format to: https://owncloud.tuwien.ac.at/index.php/s/iTpmWPnhNfXAuIm
2. I uploaded the extracted files from Category:Fake_PDF to: https://owncloud.tuwien.ac.at/index.php/s/iTpmWPnhNfXAuIm

I will delete the files from owncloud, after it is done, due to copyright-reasons.

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 06:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

very useful

in Preferences - in Gadgets - further down the list MarkAdmins: Mark users with additional rights. I would say too few use that for their own safety... JarrahTree (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I enabled it. Obviously not enabled by default. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 08:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)