User talk:Explicit/Archive 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


"Everyday life" subcategories

As I read the discussion at c:Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/09/Category:Everyday life there was either no consensus to delete (given that the general reaction to the nom seems to have been 'Meh' for six years); or to merge the tree with Category:Human activities.

If the latter, then care was appropriate to make sure subcategories in the tree should have been renamed or merged to subcategories of Category:Human activities, not deleted.

By merging from Category:Medieval miniatures of everyday life to Category:Medieval miniatures etc, we have lost information, specifically a very valuable division in the larger category by subject matter. Instead of being readily discoverable, images depicting human activities are now lost in a much much larger category.

This destruction of information was a mistake, and I would be grateful if you would reconsider and undo these actions. Jheald (talk) 08:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jheald: On the contrary, I see a clear consensus to get rid of the category. Only Piotrus flat-out rejected the proposal, while JopkeB expressed mixed feelings. The remaining four contributors did not see the value in Category:Everyday life with a well-argued position that such a broad category was not realistically categorizing files in a helpful way, and any attempt to limit its scope would be subjective.
The problem particularly with the art subcategories is that the images did not realistically depict everyday life or human activities. For example, File:Maison de P. Sala Enluminure 1517 -1523.jpg is a painting of a house. It doesn't depict humans, much less their activities. File:English - Leaf from Carrow Psalter - Walters W3422V - Open Reverse (cropped).jpg shows an angel giving Adam a a spade and Eve a spindle. Is "receiving objects from an angel" truly a human activity? How does File:Bourgeois at the End of Thirteenth Century.png portray human activities? By virtue of illustrating humans? Then we're falling right back into the loop of "everyday life" and all artwork would be categorized as "human activities" simply for showing at least one person. Other images, such as File:15th-century painters - La Cité des Dames of Christine de Pisan - WGA15886.jpg, are already part of the human activities tree. This image is in Category:Historical building construction, which eventually leads to the Category:Human activities tree.
As for Category:Medieval miniatures subcategories, they already are in the Category:Human activities tree. I decided to explore Category:Betrothal in miniatures out of curiosity (I didn't know what "betrothal" meant), and as suspected, Category:Betrothal in miniatures > Category:Betrothal in art > Category:Marriage in art > Category:People in art by activity > Category:People by activity > Category:Human activities. Category:Human activities in art does not exist, so perhaps the issue lies here—a much more visible category tree simply does not exist. Perhaps this is an approach worth taking? ƏXPLICIT 11:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To add to that, I noticed [1] where you replaced Category:17th-century way of life in painting with Category:17th-century paintings. You should probably have moved that to Category:17th-century genre paintings. Can you correct this for the paintings? Multichill (talk) 08:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Multichill: Ah, I seemed to have mistaken Category:17th-century genre paintings as a metacategory, apologies for that. I'll go through my edits for this batch and move them into the Category:17th-century genre paintings accordingly. ƏXPLICIT 11:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Genre art is quite a confusing term. Multichill (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Multichill: ✓ Done, all taken care of. ƏXPLICIT 12:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:190517 동키즈(DONGKIZ) & 왈와리(0050) KBS '뮤직뱅크(MUSICBANK)' 출근길.webm


 File:190517 동키즈(DONGKIZ) & 왈와리(0050) KBS '뮤직뱅크(MUSICBANK)' 출근길.webm has been marked for speedy deletion. A reason for the tagging has not been detected or none was placed.

Why not upload a picture of a plant, animal, or anything else which fits into our scope. You can contribute any media type you want, including but not limited to images, videos, music, and 3D models. Start uploading now ! If you don't have anything to upload at the moment, why not take a look at our best images or best videos, sounds and 3D models. If you have any doubts/questions don't hesitate to visit our help desk.

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : J. Smile (Love & V.A.V.I).

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apology

Sorry for my undesirable response here at Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Cordillera Freedom Monument".png. I already reverted that response. I now concede that there's really no FOP in the Philippines for most structures, after a reply from one student taking architecture, off-wiki (on Facebook). Buildings and sculptures enjoy copyright protection under the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (or Republic Act No. 8293), and reproductions of these works of art are only OK if these reproductions comply with Chapter VIII of Part Four of the law: (d) The reproduction and communication to the public of literary, scientific or artistic works as part of reports of current events by means of photography, cinematography or broadcasting to the extent necessary for the purpose (Sec. 12, P.D. No. 49), and (e) The inclusion of a work in a publication, broadcast, or other communication to the public, sound recording or film, if such inclusion is made by way of illustration for teaching purposes and is compatible with fair use: Provided, That the source and of the name of the author, if appearing in the work, are mentioned. According to him, if these conditiond are not acceptable for Wikimedia Commons, then such photos are "better off expunged". The only way to prevent these deletions is by a major amendment of R.A. 8293. "The law os the law," he said. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: No worries. For what it's worth, I was not aware of the FOP discussion until your posted that comment and I held off from dealing with Philippine FOP discussions hence. You may want to followup your responses in that discussion, as well as in some of the DRs you participated in. The information provided to you by the architecture student will be helpful for others to better understand Philippine law over this matter. ƏXPLICIT 10:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the recent actions being taken by some Pinoy Wikipedians, including Ianlopez1115 (requesting for opinion from DOJ) and Howhontanozaz (who seems to be in touch with IPOPHL), as seen at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP, will bear fruits sooner than later. You may want to include this discussion as among the pages being monitored by you, for some updates regarding FoP situation in the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

Sucuk and eggs

Some energy (a lot of calories :) for the good work you have been doing tonight on DRs. Thanks. E4024 (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admin question

I noticed we have User:Erkan Yilmaz and Category:Erkan Yilmaz both with the same three images. Do we really need both? I could not open a DR because one is a userpage and the other a cat, our DR tool only helps to initiate a CfD. Cheers. --E4024 (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@E4024: As far as I can tell, there isn't anything that forbids this. The pages do serve different purposes, after all: one categorizes files to help group common subjects together, and the other is the user's own userpage that is meant to tell us about the contributor. There are technically several other images on his userpage, he just forgot to properly close the gallery tag on his subpage. ƏXPLICIT 01:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the first file in the "gallery" you mention, those are neither his images nor files uploaded by him (only looked at one though). I also discovered that a few years ago, when I was still kind of new here, I moved his cat to the "correct Turkish spelling". (Am not sure if I would do that today.) I understand he is not active anymore and we could simply remove the cat, leaving his userpage intact with the three images. Indeed I doubt those three pics are even correctly licensed. Whatever. Thanks for your time. --E4024 (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:180120 (TOP SEED) 홍대 팬싸 우현 4.jpg

Hi! About this file and other files from https://somye-28.tistory.com/10 how can we see that the files have a free license? --MGA73 (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found it! :-) --MGA73 (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aerial view of Hick Hargreaves & Co. Ltd.jpg

Hi Explicit. Would you mind looking at this DR? I know that images can fairly easily be moved from Wikipedia to Commons per en:WP:MTC, but I'm not sure whether it's possible to move images from Commons to Wikipedia. The uploader of the file seems to mistakenly licensed it as {{PD-US-expired}} and now seems to feel it would meet en:WP:NFCCP. I don't think it would given the way the file's currently being used, but others might feel differently. Anyway, that would be a discussion for Wikipedia since Commons doesn't accept fair use (i.e. non-free content) of any type. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similar argument also being made by the same uploader at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Borer, Hick Hargreaves & Co. Ltd.jpg. Perhaps you could look at that one too? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: Hi, unfortunately, I am not aware of any tool that allows for Commons files to be transferred to the Wikipedias. I remember asking about exactly this somewhere here a few years ago, and the only tool available was one for admins that no longer worked even at that time. Each file will need to be manually uploaded onto Wikipedia with attribution to the original Commons page. ƏXPLICIT 23:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for checking on this. I think that's what the uploader is planning to do. However, they also seem to have removed the copyright file licenses from both File:Aerial view of Hick Hargreaves & Co. Ltd.jpg and File:Borer, Hick Hargreaves & Co. Ltd.jpg and replaced them with {{Imbox}}. I'm not sure what that means and how it affects the files. It could be an attempt to request seedy deletion of the files per COM:CSD#G7. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: Let's find out. Rstory, you noted at both of the discussion pages that you plan to upload these files locally. As these files are ready to be deleted, do you have the necessary information to re-upload them on the English Wikipedia? ƏXPLICIT 00:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, chipping away at this by degrees. I'll up load them to Wikipedia and swap the files so there is no loss of information for the moment. If you don't mind holding until I've done that, then delete from Commons, thanks. Rstory (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sumit Pathak.jpg

Hi Explicit. Since you deleted the file discussed in the above-mentioned DR, maybe you noticed this issue that I was seeing. Do you have any idea as to why that was happening? Was it just me seeing this or was there something else going on? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: For some reason, the thumbnail showed the file that was previously deleted as a copyright violation. I'm not sure why that was. Perhaps a (seriously) delayed cache? ƏXPLICIT 00:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think your hunch about it being a cache issue is correct based upon the response I got at COM:VPT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Animals in zoos

Thanks for closing Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/07/Category:Animals in zoos by zoo name. Are you planning to do the rest (such as Category:Mammals in zoos by zoo name and its various subcats)? If you'd like help with them, let me know. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: Yup, I plan to get these done hopefully by today. If I don't get through them, feel free to have at it. ƏXPLICIT 01:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:131215 IFC몰 딕펑스 사인회 김태현 30.jpg

File:131215 IFC몰 딕펑스 사인회 김태현 30.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

BriefEdits (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:131215 IFC몰 딕펑스 사인회 김태현 28.jpg

File:131215 IFC몰 딕펑스 사인회 김태현 28.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

BriefEdits (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:131215 IFC몰 딕펑스 사인회 김태현 20.jpg

File:131215 IFC몰 딕펑스 사인회 김태현 20.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

BriefEdits (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File log

Hello @Explicit: please have a look at the File:Rajeev_Siddhartha_Photo.jpg and the log. Thanks --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 02:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@C1K98V: Should be fully deleted now. ƏXPLICIT 03:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick response. Have a good day. --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 03:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Npd question

Hi Explicit. Perhaps you can help sort this out. This editor seems to be trying to completely rewrite an article about her husband en:Marco Augusto Dueñas per en:WP:THQ#COI and uploading files of him and his work is probably part of that effort. She appears to be getting help on Wikipedia with the content part, but I'm not too sure how to best help her on Commons with the images part. She's claiming the files she uploaded were paid for some time ago, but has no idea as to how to contact the photographer who took the photos. There's no FOP for 3D works of art in Italy, the Vatican, or the US, but that can probably be worked out if her husband is the sculptor and those are his work. It's photos that I'm not sure about since she doesn't seem to be claiming that she or her husband took them. Complicating things a bit further is that en:User:Marco Augusto Dueñas Cepas has been indefinitely blocked on Wikipedia and it's not whether this is one or two people trying to unintentionally use multiple accounts to rewrite the article. Anyway, I just wanted another opinion to make sure I wasn't being a bit overzealous in tagging the files with npd. If I was and they're OK, then that's fine; or, if they should go to DR instead, then that's OK too. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: The file tagging looks fine to me, as there is no evidence that the original photographer's permission was sought before uploading the photo. If there is suspicion that sockpuppetry is occurring on the English Wikipedia, then it may be worth launching an investigation. It doesn't bode well in regards to meatpuppetry in any case. ƏXPLICIT 03:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look at things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DR concern

Hello @Explicit: can you please have a look at this File:Aatmanirbhar Bharat.jpg. And could close the DR. I know this is controversial, but I never intended to violate commons policy. Thanks for your consideration. --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 07:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the license?

Hi, I noticed you confirmed File:180331 Kang Min-kyung at Incheon International Airport (2).jpg as freely licensed 2 years ago. Can you tell me where is the copyright information t https://dkyouholic.tistory.com/95 ? TIA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Hi, the license can be found at the very bottom of the post on the right-hand side. It shows the icon and links to {{Cc-by-4.0}}. ƏXPLICIT 00:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I see it now! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Choi_hyunsuk.jpg

This picture was uploaded by Withmedarlene and they claims it's their own work. However it's actually taken from this YouTube video uploaded by Mnet. So I was wondering if this can be considered as own work or if it's a copyrighted image. The user has been warned 3 times for copyright violations in the past month. EN-Jungwon (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EN-Jungwon: It is not the user's own work as they have taken a screenshot of another person's copyrighted work. I have deleted the file and blocked the user for one month. ƏXPLICIT 23:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by User:PPSOfficial

Hi Explicit. Would you mind taking a look a the recent uploads of Special:Contributions/PPSOfficial. I've tagged them with {{Npd}} because they're not being claimed as "own work" and there's no indication given of the respective sources that they've been released as license. I think this could be a case of the uploader mistakenly assuming that being publically available on Facebook is the same as being released under a free license per COM:L. If the licensing is OK, feel free to remove the tags. FWIW, I think this might be somehow connected to a bunch of file uploaded locally to English Wikipedia for use in en:Manith Jupiter that ended up deleted; at least one of the images appears to be the same as one which was deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you deleted the files mentioned above. Just for reference, this user has been blocked as a SOCK on English Wikipedia but I’m not sure that should carry over to Commons. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi there, Admin. How are you doing? Can you please close this discussion. It is a dead-end chat and has no reason to take place there. Thanks and Happy New Year! Hoh hoh ho... :) --E4024 (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@E4024: Seems like you're both done with the discussion, so I don't see the point in closing it now. Just walk away. ƏXPLICIT 05:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SCOPE question

Hi Explicit. A bit late, but Happy New Year! I hope 2021 is a good one for you, your family and your friends.

I’ve got a question about COM:SCOPE, in particular COM:INUSE. I’m not sure whether that covers files like File:Scenery17.jpg, File:NPS Visitor Center.jpg and File:Mont Veyrier.jpg. All three are being used on en:User:Atlantis77177, but nowhere else. They’re nice photos, but it’s not clear what (if any) encyclopedic purpose they’re serving. Their licensing seems fine, but again it’s not clear why they were uploaded other than perhaps the uploaded likes them. In addition, the first photo has a watermark that probably could be cropped out if necessary, and it probably should be renamed to something specific. Those are minor things, but it’s whether they meet SCOPE is what I’m not sure about. It’s possible they could used in some articles, but not sure which ones. Maybe en:Grand Canyon for the visitor center photo, but that article already has lots of photos. I’be got no idea where the other two might work. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: You'd be hard-pressed to get the Commons community to agree to delete these photos, even if they weren't being used on a userpage. They are very poorly categorized—which I'll be fixing shortly—which likely contributes to their lack of use. Unless a landscape photo is very poor quality or has no real focus, it's better to conserve that energy and not nominate them for deletion. ƏXPLICIT 10:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understand. Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvios and socking

Hi Explicit. I believe you previously deleted versions of File:Smallworld Smallband Album Near.jpg, File:Smallworld Smallband Debut Album 2x5.jpg, File:Smallworld Smallband.jpg and File:Aok Sokunkanha Dressed Traditional Costume.jpg that were uploaded by a user named PPSOfficial per #Uploads by User:PPSOfficial. Versions of the same files seemed to have also be repeatedly uploaded by a user named Norasky53. The Norasky53 account was blocked on Commons for repeatedly uploading copyvios, and both account were blocked on Wikipedia as socks. The uploader this time around Lourn Sochetra has declared a COI on their Commons and Wikipedia user pages, but my guess is they are probably the same person. I've already asked about this on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure about the files uploaded to Commons. Any suggestions on what to do here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: I've blocked all the accounts that weren't blocked up until today. Turns out the master is Phnom Penh Skyline, who managed to get their block escalated up to a ban. Commons doesn't share the same policy as the English Wikipedia that allows files to be speedily deleted for evading a block or ban, so the deletion of their uploads should follow standard procedure if it is justified. ƏXPLICIT 06:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understand and thank you for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they're back as Khmerloy9 or this is just a sleeper for an unrelated previously blocked account. It kind of seems like an admission of socking in a weird kind of way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: I've made a request at Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/PPSOfficial, as this seems like a mess that has yet to be sorted here on Commons. ƏXPLICIT 02:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Nelson Mandela Statue.jpg

I do not understand this, but will oblige by the rules. It was taken in the public domain at the unveiling. Journalists were also taken photos which appeared worldwide. I did not sell the photo and had no monetary gain out of it. It’s similar with the work in progress photo of the artist working on the statue. In that case it was not in the public domain but the artist gave consent for the picture. I did not ask for consent to be used in Wikipedia. As I said, if I have transgressed then Wikipedia has rights to remove it. If this rule applies generally then I believe no (or only a very small amount) photos of buildings or statues will be legally on Wikipedia. If I understand this correct it means that consent is not good enough; it has to be consent to be used on Wikipedia. I humbly then comment that Wikipedia will lose its attraction. If it was not my photo obviously there would be copyright issues. Lastly I also do not get recognition for the photo (which I do not want), but this will make me think twice before I write another article on Wikipedia and I want to, because it’s a living encyclopedia

User:Barry Ne 13:29 22 January 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Barry Ne. If you uploaded a photo you took of a statue that was subsequently deleted from Commons, then most like the reason it was deleted has to do with Commons:Freedom of panorama. Copyright law can be quite different from country to country and often one of the biggest differences has to do the with concept of en:freedom of panorama. Some countries allow photographs of buildings and other architectural works as well as publicly displayed works of art of art without any restrictions placed on such photos from a copyright standpoint; other countries, however, do place restrictions on such photos in an effort the protect the copyright ownership of the person(s) who created the work. In the latter case, that means there are most likely two copyright holders who rights need to be considered: the person taking the photo and the person who creating the work being photographed. In addition, many countries follow a practice called en:fair use or en:fair dealing which specifies conditions in which such photos may be taken without the permission or consent of the copyright holder of the original work, and this is why journalists, etc. were able to take photos of the statue. Since Commons only will accept content that is either public domain or which is 100% free per Commons:Licensing, it doesn't accept any type of fair use content per Commons:Fair use and the Commons:Email templates/Consent of the original copyright holder is needed in such cases.
Commons licensing requirements basically allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the images it hosts at anytime and reuse those images in anyway they want, even for commercial and derivative purposes. So, even though you may not have intended to use the image in any such way yourself, by uploading the file to Commons you were giving others permission to do so. Now, if you're an artist and you upload an image of one of your statues to Commons under such a license, then that's almost certainly going to be OK since you basically hold both copyrights; on the other hand, if you take a photo of a statue created by someone else and that statue is installed in a country which doesn't grant freed of panorama to publically displayed 3D works of art (for example, like COM:FOP United States), then Commons can't keep the photo unless it can verify the consent of the artist whose work it is. The photo you take is considered to be a Commons:Derivative work and you can claim copyright ownership of it, but you can't claim copyright ownership of the the statue itself.
English Wikipedia and some other language Wikipedias do allow such photos to be uploaded locally and used per meta:Non-free content. Each Wikipedia, however, might have slightly different rules regarding this, but find out more about what English Wikipedia allows at en:Wikipedia:Non-free content and en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review of a file

Hello! Can you please check this file File:Dynamite BTS (musical group).svg? In the licence it states "The copyright on the cover is believed to be owned by the label, Big Hit Entertainment, or the graphic artist (s). However, since the cover consists exclusively of simple geometric shapes or text, this is in the public domain". However, I believe it can't be applied to this cover and since I'm not experienced with this I'm requesting your opinion about it. Thanks. Have a good day. --Pandadri (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pandadri: Hi, per COM:TOO South Korea, this should be okay for {{PD-textlogo}}. It looks like simple text and basic geometric shapes to me. ƏXPLICIT 05:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of File:YingChiYuet MrLittleCat photo.jpg

Hello Explicit, May I ask about why File:YingChiYuet MrLittleCat photo.jpg was deleted? What kind of copyright is violated? The file was actually uploaded by a company's authorized person who owned the photo. Is there any way to avoid being treated as copyright violation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyzmi (talk • contribs) 06:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xyzmi: Hi, this image was deleted because it was previously published on this website nearly a year prior to the upload here. This is usually an indication of a copyright violation and instances such as these are routinely deleted as copyright violations as they are almost always copyrighted. If the original account is personnel from the company and is authorized to release images under a free license, please have them follow the procedure at COM:CONSENT to verify this information. ƏXPLICIT 10:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Hi, Admin. I also have a question to you: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gaysex 11.jpg is open since September last year. Three and a half months have passed since you showed that the file was previously on the net and in a bigger form. When do you think this DR will be closed? Indeed you could have closed it with your argument; I guess you did not imagine that it would stay for this much long... Take care. E4024 (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@E4024: Commons is incredibly backlogged. Nine months for DRs, six and a half years for CFDs. I don't hold any expectations for timely discussion closures. ƏXPLICIT 12:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DR

Hi. Commons:Deletion requests/File:2-3-2K.jpg is about a deleted file re-uploaded case. My mistake not to have requsted speedy. Can you have a look please (also the edits of the uploader...)? Thanks. E4024 (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dear Explicit

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)[reply]

Gong Ok-jin

Hello, this is about an uploaded media for Madam Gong Okjin. Last month, I sent an email inquiry to the reporter who wrote the article for information regarding details of the photo. I received a response from the media company 2 weeks ago and unfortunately, they also have no information about the photo (when and where it was taken and who took it). Please advise. If the photo/s need to be removed, I would understand. Wjddml (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wjddml: Hi, please see COM:LI. Commons can only accept files that are released under an acceptable license. Unfortunately, the files will ultimately deleted if we can not verify that the original author agrees to such licensing terms. ƏXPLICIT 07:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a short survey regarding UCoC

Hello Explicit,

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) 13:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I need categories of File:Medeu is closed for quarantine 2020.jpg

Good afternoon! You deleted this file on November 30, 2020. Can you find out what categories were listed in this file prior to deletion? I really need the categories that were in this file! Please!--Nurtenge (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nurtenge: Hi, these are the categories: Category:Medeu, Category:COVID-19 pandemic in Kazakhstan, Category:Sports during the COVID-19 pandemic, Category:Closures during the COVID-19 pandemic, Category:Red barriers, Category:Temporarily closed signs, Category:September 2020 in Kazakhstan, and Category:Photographs taken on 2020-09-13. ƏXPLICIT 23:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much!--Nurtenge (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Capas National Shrine Monument at Sunrise.jpg

Hello. Was File:Capas National Shrine Monument at Sunrise.jpg from Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Capas National Shrine meant to be kept or was just an oversight? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: Hi, this file is affected by an ongoing bug (phab:T244567) and attempts to delete it lead to an error page. It is tagged with {{Deletion error}} in the meantime. ƏXPLICIT 13:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nawele

Hello! Can you delete ("per author's request") this file? — Mychele Trempetich (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mychele Trempetich: Hi, CSD G7 only applies to pages created within the past seven days. You will need to nominate the file for deletion at COM:DR. ƏXPLICIT 13:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onna Bugeisha 2020's uploads

Hi Explicit. Would you mind taking a look at the uploads of Onna Bugeisha 2020? I went looked a few of them and I think this editor probably is misunderstanding what is meant by "own work" when it comes to logos, tables and graphs found online. They uploaded lots of other files/photos that might also need to be given a closer look, particularly since there's no FOP in France for buildings per COM:FOP France, but it's the logos and other content that looks like it comes from some website that seems to be being inappropriately claimed as "own work" and released under CC licensing. Some might be simple enough to be PD in the US, but COM:TOO United Kingdom and COM:TOO France aren't as clear. Anyway, if I've inappropriately tagged any files, feel free to remove the tag or relicense the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: I've deleted a few as blatant copyright violations and have nominated others for deletion. I'm not so sure about the charts and graphs... ƏXPLICIT 12:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The editor doesn't seem to be slowing down despite all of the notifications related to their uploads that have been added to their user talk page. They uploaded File:Jeanne Weill or Dick May.png under a claim of "own work" when it seems clear that such a thing isn't possible, unless they were around taking photos between 1859-1925. Now, it's quite possible that this file is PD, but there's no information provided about it's provenance; so, if it's treated as an "anonymous work" , then it wouldn't be PD in the US unless it can be shown it was taken prior 1901. I tagged it with npd because of the claim of "own work", but perhaps a DR would be better. The "problem" (if that's the right word) is that the uploader has never posted a talk page comment on either Commons or Wikipedia; so, it seems unlikely that they are going to participate in any discussions about their uploads. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2 DRs

Hi. As you are on-line, can you kindly close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Josh Wood in 2009.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rafia Ramzan.jpg? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@E4024: I've closed the first discussion. It's about 12 hours too early for the second one. ƏXPLICIT 01:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but 16+7=23, no? --E4024 (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@E4024: The nomination date and time is 13:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC), current date and time 02:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC) = 10 hours 17 minutes remaining until the full seven days. Not quite there. ƏXPLICIT 02:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awis al-Qarni mosque1

Hi, Explicit. Today you deleted the File:Awis al-Qarni mosque1 on request by User:A1Cafel who assumed that the mosque depicted is located in Iraq. But ar-Raqqa is not in Iraq, but in Syria. As you can see from the Copyright Rules by Country, the rules in Syria concerning freedom of panorama are more liberal than in Iraq: "Without the permission of the author and without making any compensation, the author may transfer works of fine arts or applied works, or plastic or architectural works to the public through the materials of the broadcasting stations if such works are permanently present in public places." Since the mosque is in the public place, no permission of the architect is needed. Could you please undelete the file? Thank you.--PaFra (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PaFra: Hi, thank you for clarifying that this mosque is located in Syria and not Iraq. However, I'm afraid the situation regarding freedom of panorama does not improve as indicated by  Not OK on the page. The page states that copyrighted structures are only allowed to be shown by broadcasting stations, which Wikimedia Commons is not. ƏXPLICIT 00:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Hi PaFra. Just want to add that even if you tried to argue that Commons was a "broadcasting station" or that the images it hosts were considered to be a type of "broadcasting of images", the only types of licensing that Commons are basically only those which allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the file at anytime and use for any purpose, including for commercial or derivative purposes. In other words, files uploaded to Commons cannot be licensed in a way that places any restrictions on how they may be reused, except perhaps for requiring that the original copyright holder be attributed by those reusing the file. So, while the file might have been uploaded because someone wanted to use the file in some Wikipedia articles, others could download it from Commons and use it for completely different reasons and there's no real way to stop them from doing so as long as the comply with the terms of the file's license. There can be no restrictions applied to the reuse files like "for educational use only", "for Wikipedia use only", "for broadcasting station use only", "for non-commercial use only", etc. for Commons to be able to keep a file. Now, some possible solutions to this matter. If the file was being used in the English Wikipedia article about the mosque itself for primary identification purposes (which seems to be the case), then it might be possible to upload the file locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content if it satisfies Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Another possibility might be to upload the file to English Wikipedia as a kind of "English Wikipedia only" public domain under the license en:Template:FOP-USonly if the terms of that license are met. I'm not sure which is better in this case, but perhaps Explicit has an opinion since he's also an administrator on English Wikipedia and does lots of work with files there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Explicit, for your clarification, and thank you @Marchjuly: for pointing to a possible solution. You seem to be right. Also German Wikipedia applies the principle of Lex loci protectionis, so it would be possible to upload the file locally. The only problem is that I do not have a duplicate copy of the file. #Explicit, do you think that you could make the file reaccessible for me for this purpose? Thank you in advance for your efforts.--PaFra (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PaFra: The file is available on Flickr. ƏXPLICIT 00:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thank you.PaFra (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DR

Hi. Can you close this one please? Thx. --E4024 (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete 3 images of Benavides Monument

Hello Explicit. Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Metro Manila, while most of the images fail COM:FOP Philippines, 3 of them depict the public domain Benavides Monument, and is within {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}. The images are File:Benavides Monument - Founder of UST.JPG, File:Benavides Monument - Founder of UST.JPG and File:Closer view of Benavides Monument.JPG (proof: w:Benavides Monument. Please undelete these 3 images. Thanks. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: ✓ Done, undeleted. You listed File:Benavides Monument - Founder of UST.JPG twice, so I'm assuming you meant File:Benavides Monument.JPG? ƏXPLICIT 09:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uh yes! Sorry for duplication, due to my schedule today in the midst of exam week. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Commons photo by media

Hi Explicit, One of our Commons photos has been cropped and used by media and seemingly not credited. Is this OK? The image is [2] and has been used here [3] and [4]. Thanks,--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonnielou2013: Hi, long time no see. According to COM:CREDIT#CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses, attribution was not done correctly on Benzinga's part, and they are legally required to do so. You may want to contact the company or the author of the article directly and ask to them to properly attribute the image to your (user)name and the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. ƏXPLICIT 11:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, I wasn't sure how the license worked. I will give it a try to contact them. We have to follow so many rules to contribute to Commons, and I hate to see our efforts here being taken disadvantage of.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-free logos

Hi there Explicit. This admin backlog may be of interest to you. 1989 (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thanks for the deletion of one of the files mentioned in the nomination. I had to nominate these files on behalf of Glorious 93 because another user (Kj1595) had committed copyright violations for the second time. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will-pen

Hi @Explicit,

Do you delete the files and block Will-pen ? He upload files with piercing p3n!s.

Good bye ! ÉOLE79000 (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ÉOLE79000: Why? Commons is not censored. ƏXPLICIT 23:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but he would censor this website with an piercing p3n!s... with "file:Pen--wz.jpg", "file:Will-pen.01.jpg", ...

He is from an suspicious site : from br4zz3rs, p0rnhub, ...

Signed : ÉOLE79000 (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello editor, i would like to know why you deleted the logo when i have placed a description/explanation on it's talk page? I have clearly explained that it's not the copyright material and i have been given the authority by Islamia University to post it on their behalf so it can be used freely by anyone.

Would be happy to hear more from you.

Asim mz (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Asim mz: Hi, Wikimedia Commons needs documentation directly from Islamia University which verifies that they have granted you permission to release their logo under the Creative Commons license you claimed. To do so, please follow the directions as outlined at COM:CONSENT. ✗plicit 06:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New signature

Nice. Can you please use a button on this file so that we can delete the WD item of an OoS person? Thx. --E4024 (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@E4024: ✓ Done, ended up uncovering a small sock farm. ✗plicit 04:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all :) --E4024 (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Source

Where is the source for this deletion? (@Plani: Do you know more? --Munf (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Munf: Hi, I'm not quite sure what you mean about a source. These files were deleted because, as the nomination statement points out, images of Austrian currency can not be uploaded onto Commons per COM:CUR Austria. ✗plicit 14:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me in RIS --Munf (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Miss_Magazine

Excuse me Explicit, can you help me? I faced the unconvincing DR , the nominator does not seem to be familiar with Asian (Japanese, in this case) pop-culture, he/she seems to just assume the uploads have a bad faith. I appealed the claim at the DR page (en:Gravure Idols(ja:グラビアアイドル) are a part of Japanese pop-culture, like models, actresses, etc. so the videos depict their normal businesses and can be used the wikipedia article(s) as I mentioned, as the examples what the models performs. so they can have an educational value like other Japanese pop-cultures. also Commons does not necessarily require its files must be used in other wikimedia projects, because the site is a general media repository files in the website can be used outside anywhere (that's why Commons is a "free" license media site.)), but the nominator strongly maintained his/her arguments. Puramyun31 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cassim_Louis.jpg Public Domain

File:Cassim Louis.jpg

I guess I must have given the wrong copyright setting but this picture is in the public domain. This picture has been used by almost everyone, this image was used for his obituary and for press in general. Do I still need to show proof of use?

--Akim Ernest (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Akim Ernest: Hi, there is a difference between an image being publicly available and the author relinquishing their rights over the photo, and there is no evidence of the latter. The copyright holder, usually the person who takes the photo, is the only person who has the authority to release their photos under the public domain. In the absence of such a claim, it is assumed that the work is fully protected by copyright. ✗plicit 02:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bae Ho (portrait sketch of 'Foggy Jangchundan Park').jpg

Hi Explicit. Would you mind taking a look at this file? It's provided with a source link and there appears to be a CC license on the sourced website, but what I can determine is whether that's the original source of the image or whether it's just hosting the image. en:Bae Ho died in 1971; so, perhaps the "11 May 2019" date given in the description is just an oversight. On the other hand, this isn't a photograph but rather a sketch, and could've been created at any time or by anyone. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Hi, the source link doesn't provide any information regarding the images on that page specifically. Their copyright policy states that pages licensed under Creative Commons and KOGL are owned by the Seoul Metropolitan Government, so presumably the copyright of the images lies with them as well since there's... really not much else on them. It also states that copyrighted data is not accompanied by the CCL or KOGL and re-users must first acquire permission from the copyright holders. It seems like this image should be okay. ✗plicit 11:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint

Hello Explicit, it's me, Ric Aries. I'd like to know why I'm gonna be partially blocked because every time I publish a file, I write the source where that file was taken from and then that file is deleted. I just want to cooperate with the project and I beg you, correct this error, please. Ric Aries (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ric Aries: Hi, as the notices on your talk page suggest, you have either uploaded images as {{Own work}} when you have simply lifted them from various places on the internet or marked them with free licenses with an external source, but did not provide sufficient evidence of a free license. These are copyright violations. You are only allowed to upload media under a free license that either: a) you have created yourself; b) the author has clearly marked their work under a license compatible with Commons. ✗plicit 00:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advice wanted

here --Thirunavukkarasye-Raveendran (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Songsfam.com 1.jpg

Hi Explicit. You might want to look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Songsfam.com 1.jpg since you verified the licensing. Just for reference, the file seems to have ended up a DR because of en:WP:THQ#Was this image removal appropriate?. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m not very good with commons

How come these pictures are allowed but mine aren’t? File:TBJZL 15-09-2014.jpg File:Harry Lewis.png File:Miniminter playing FIFA.png File:Miniminter photo 2019.png Sahaib3005 (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sahaib3005: Hi, those screenshots are taken from videos that are licensed under the YouTube Creative Commons License. You can view the video's license once you click "Show More" and reach the bottom of the description box. Hence, {{YouTube CC-BY}} applies. The three files of yours which were tagged for missing permission come from videos without that license, indicating they are fully copyright and not suitable for Commons. ✗plicit 05:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Explicit: Thanks for the info. I have uploaded better files now. Sahaib3005 (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted logos

Hello. I noticed that you are the person who closed Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Telehit_Urbano_2019.png. The files were deleted due to lacking licensing information, but they didn't meet the threshold of originality. So the license should have just been changed to reflect it copyrightable instead of the files being deleted. Unfortunately, {@ItsJustdancefan: has been mass nominating a bunch of files for the same (or very similar) reasons and I'd hate to see a bunch of files get deleted just because they don't feel like adding the proper licensing information. I'd appreciate it if you could at least un-delete these files in the meantime. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: Hi, despite the nomination statement, these files did have license tags: {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}. However, most of the files uploaded by Leo Leyito have been above the threshold of originality. This particular logo looked like this, but with a transparent background. ✗plicit 09:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hhmmm, alright. For some reason I thought it was the version of their logo that's just letters. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Revdel

Hello Explicit. Please revdel the three files File:BishopDeograciasS.Iñiguez,Jr.jf0193 01.JPG, File:BishopDeograciasS.Iñiguez,Jr.jf0193 02.JPG, and File:BishopDeograciasS.Iñiguez,Jr.jf0193 03.JPG, which you suggested at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:National Shrine of The Divine Mercy, Philippines. I've already conducted the cropping via CropTool myself. Thanks in advance. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: ✓ Done, revdel completed. ✗plicit 10:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leeminhophotographyforemperortheking2020.jpg

Hello, while I'm not the copyright holder nor the author of this image, don't you think it's a bit unfair to delete someone's own photographic work due to "lack of licensing"? As far as I can remember, they said that they were working for SBS at the time of the upload, so... could you restore it? —beetricks ~ 💬 · ✉️ 15:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetricks: Hi, the file was deleted as a copyright violation, not for lacking a license. This image was a widely publicized promotional still that was in circulation four months before it was uploaded on Commons, like on Twitter, for example. The uploader will need to send evidence that they are the copyright holder and have the authority to release this image under a free license. ✗plicit 11:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Linda Hogan in 2008.png

Hi Explicit. What do you think about the "own work" claim being made for File:Linda Hogan in 2008.png? There's no EXIF data to speak of and the same image can actually be seen here in what looks like a 2016 forum discussion; however, it's hard to tell exactly when the photo was added to that discussion. FWIW, I don't think the uploader is really the en:Hulkster despite their choice of user name. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Hi, I've deleted it as a copyright violation. The photo is also available on this Flickr account, which also seems to have been posted five years ago based on first comment left on the post. It's unlikely that the Flickr user owns the rights, but it's clear enough to see that Hulkster22085 uploaded a copyright violation. ✗plicit 13:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look at this Explicit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lilylovesreading19

Hi Explicit, could you please look into this user. They were warned last month for uploading copyrighted pictures and they uploaded another copyrighted picture today. Could you please temporarily block them for copyright violation? Thanks. EN-Jungwon 14:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And another one. EN-Jungwon 16:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EN-Jungwon: ✓ Done, I have blocked the user for one week. ✗plicit 00:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:2016-10-28 Diffeo team winning big check at NGA Disparate Data Challenge.jpg

Hello Explicit! Thank you for identifying the copyright issue with File:2016-10-28 Diffeo team winning big check at NGA Disparate Data Challenge.jpg That image was included in a press release about the NGA Disparate Data Challenge, so it was used in several press articles, most of which linked to that press release, like the medium.com post by InTeahouse. The original press release is no longer online, and it's not clear what license grant (if any) it provided. So, I've reached out to the original copyright owner of the photo to request a release. Best regards. Jrf (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jrf: Hi, thanks for the notice. If permission is confirmed, the file can be undeleted. ✗plicit 14:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need editor block or warning

Hi Explicit, I am not very active on Commons but caught this today. [5] Please confirm that I am correct in my Spanish translation and my revert. I am appalled. Especially that it has been there for months. Thank you.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonnielou2013: Hi, it translates as "stupid boy doing stupid things". As the edit was six months ago and the user hasn't been active since then, the issue is stale and it's a little too late to take any action, unfortunately. ✗plicit 01:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:BENNETH NWANKWO.jpg

Hi Explicit. I came across this via en:WP:THQ#Delete image. I think the uploader wanted to request CSD per WP:CSD#G7 but just didn't seem to know how to properly do so. Please also note that essentially the same image was uploaded as File:Benneth Nwankwo.jpg by a different editor a earlier this year, and that file also has issues; so, I tagged it with {{Npd}}. Would you mind taking a look at these? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Hi, I have deleted Olugold's upload as G7, as that seemed to be the intent and was requested two days after being uploaded. {{No permission since}} for File:Benneth Nwankwo.jpg looks fine, and I have also tagged three of that user's other uploads for the same issue. ✗plicit 06:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking at these files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pivarunas talk.jpg

Hi Explicit. What do you think about File:Pivarunas talk.jpg? It was uploaded way back in 2006 under what appears to be a claim of "own work". There's no EXIF data or other information which is helpful in verifying such a claim, and the uploader seems to have stopped editing back in 2014. The same photo can be seen used on some other wesbites per this, but there's no way to see whether Commons precedes them all. Although this file is really old, it's not quite old enough for COM:GRANDFATHER by a few months. Do you think this is OK as is, should be tagged with {{Npd}} or should go DR? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Hi, it's always difficult dealing with old, low-resolution images not only due to their age, but because DRs haven't consistently come to the same conclusion. Being low resolution and having no EXIF has been enough to delete some, while the lack of significant doubt of the file's copyright status and meta:Avoid copyright paranoia getting cited has resulted in others being kept. Whether it should be nominated for deletion is up to the individual editor. ✗plicit 11:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Atlanta 96 Gold medal.jpg

Hi Explicit. Would you mind taking a look at File:Atlanta 96 Gold medal.jpg? The same file is being discussed at en:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 August 7, and it’s not clear why this would no longer be non-free content. It it’s OK for Commons, then the FFD can be closed asap because the NFCC no longer applies; however, this was discussed before and the file was converted to a non-free and it’s not clear what changed since then. Pinging Fastily and Niteshift36 as a courtesy since both were involved in the PUF discussion and because Niteshift36 is the uploader of the file. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

License Review Needed

Hi Explicit, I need your help! This images needs some verification on license review section, p.s. all of the images below was uploaded by me as well, It's all a screenshots of the Youtube video with Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed). Please help me for the license review, Thank you before...--Lukewon (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lukewon: ✓ Done, all reviewed. ✗plicit 00:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Explicit:  Thank you. for all your license reviews! --Lukewon (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found much information about South Korean copyright rules.

I'm South Korean, so I found much information about South Korean copyright rules.

First, I found South Korean de minimis.

At the end of 2019, as the copyright law of South Korea was amended, the de minimis clause was added. (COM:DM South Korea)

Second, I found that South Korean copyright act don't protect non-building structure.

See also: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Yi Sun-sin Bridge

Third, I found copyright cases related to logos or trademarks in South Korea. (COM:TOO South Korea)

I will find more information about South Korean copyright rules.

Can you mark translation at COM:CRT/South Korea and COM:DM?

Ox1997cow (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ox1997cow: Hi, I'm not quite sure how to do this. Perhaps an active translation admin or someone at the translators' noticeboard may be able to help with your request. ✗plicit 07:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by Taricksalmaci

Hi Explicit. Would you mind taking a look at Taricksalmaci's recent recent uploads? I'm almost positive that all of these files have been previously deleted (some even multiple times) before either because they were clear copyright violations or because of really questionable claims of "own work". I've tried to explain such things to the editor in the post both on Commons and also on their Wikipedia user talk page, but they keep coming back and keep reuploading the same files. I believe this is the same person as en:Tarick Salmaci and that article has needed to be protected multiple times over the years because due to disruptive editing and likely socking. Every time the PP runs out, a new account appears to try and continue to re-add these photos and make other questionable edits. The latest PP for a year ran out a few days ago and the edits have started up again. I'm beginning to think that the article might need to be indefinitely protected since only then will the reuploads to Commons probably stop. Since you're an admin on both English Wikipedia and Commons, I thought that perhaps you could take whatever action might be needed on both. The English Wikipedia account has been already indefinitely blocked, but the socking has continued. The Commons account was blocked for three months, but it's back to uploading questionable files. I was willing to show this editor some good faith early on and try and help them sort things out, but they've never really responded and don't seem interested in even trying to follow relevant policies and guidelines on either English Wikipedia or Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Hi, I have blocked Taricksalmaci indefinitely for continually uploading non-free files. I have also blocked and/or tagged suspected sockpuppets of his on the English Wikipedia and on Commons if the account existed, which can be found at en:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Taricksalmaci and Category:Sockpuppets of Taricksalmaci. en:Tarick Salmaci is now indefinitely semi-protected, where I have restored the last stable revision. ✗plicit 07:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking into this Explicit. Boxingdetroit responded to a post I left on their user talk page in which they've claimed to be en:Tarick Salmaci. I haven't responded yet, but thought I might try and explain things one last time. There's not much information I could provide that hasn't already been provided by myself and others, but I thought I'd try and explain why they were blocked and point them to en:WP:UNBLOCK. Do you think that would be appropriate? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jisoo image

I was wanting your opinion on which image should be used for Jisoo's image infobox. I have it on her talk page. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cai Xia.jpg

Hi Explicit. Would you mind taking a look at File:Cai Xia.jpg? I asked about it at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/09#Voice of America screenshot, but I never got a response. As I posted, this doesn't appear to be content originally created by Voice of America, but rather a photo of an unknown source that they used in report about en:Cai Xia. If need be I can start a DR on this, but I just want to make sure such a thing is necessary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Indeed, this looks like an image that was taken from elsewhere and not a photo created by VOA. A regular deletion request would be the best course of action. ✗plicit 03:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question about original and cropped versions of same image

Hi Explicit. Would you mind taking a look at File:Actor Anita Stewart on a 10-inch Ceramic Souvenir Plate. Vitagraph Studios publicity item.jpg? Based upon the discussions at COM:VPC#PD-US-no notice usage and User talk:Clindberg#File:Actor Anita Stewart on a 10-inch Ceramic Souvenir Plate. Vitagraph Studios publicity item.jpg, it appears that the file was uploaded incorrectly as {{PD-US-no notice}}. Attempts to try and get the uploader to clarify things at en:WP:MCQ#Wizard of Oz image on Wiki Commons didn't get very far, but a crop of the artwork (which is most likely PD) was made as File:Actor Anita Stewart on a 10-inch Ceramic Souvenir Plate. Vitagraph Studios publicity item (cropped).png by someone from COM:GL/P. The original upload is most likely is going to require VRT verification at the very least in order to be kept, but I don't think the uploader is going to bother with that. For reference, another one of their uploads licensed in a similar manner has already been tagged with {{Npd}}, and I can also do the same for this file. If the crop cannot be kept because the original file cannot be kept, then I guess that's what needs to happen. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Hi, if the photo was simply taken from the columbia.edu link, then it definitely lacks permission from the original photographer and can be tagged as missing permission. Even the cropped version would not be acceptable, as is it still a result of a photograph and is not a faithful 2D reproduction. If the PD-claim of the original work is accurate, then it would only apply if it was created as a result of being put through a scanner, for example, but not as a result of someone taking a photo of it. ✗plicit 07:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Explict. I thought a crop might by chance be OK, but it seems that was a little too hopeful. The whole thing started from the uploader just uploading files under the "PD-US-no notice" license without apparantly even doing any real digging to see if that's OK to do. My guess is that they wanted to use the files in Wikipedia articles and had problems meeting the NFCC; so, they just thought uploading them to Commos would be OK. A understandable mistake perhaps, but the uploader doesn't seem to interested in trying to sort things out themselves. I thought a crop might work in this particular case, but I'm not really going to go tracking down copyright holders on the uploader's behalf. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/559118637

Hi there. I offered a very valid reason for deletion. Can you explain why you choose to reject it? Thank you. dwadieff ✉ 05:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: Hi, I probably should have closed it with the rationale "per discussion", but the default input is "no valid reason for deletion". As for the result itself, I did not see anything in particular that would be subject to copyright, either as being incredibly plain or de minimis. For example, where is the copyrighted element in a stone staircase? Or bleachers? We also have to take COM:UA into consideration for the aforementioned files. File:Streets of Bawan.JPG is a case DM, as it is a view of the street and there is no specific building in focus. File:Sultan Syarif Hasim Bridge.JPG is a road, File:Sawahlunto railway station (3).JPG shows a building with a plain white wall, and File:Simpang Haru railway station.JPG hardly shows the structure in it at all. I suspect the admin who closed the discussion for the first batch viewed these files similarly. ✗plicit 07:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COM:Packaging question

Hi Explicit. I'm wondering what you think about User talk:Wizzito#File:Totino's Pizza.jpg. I'm not sure Commons can keep this file, but perhaps there's something I'm missing or misunderstanding. Please also note that a file with the same name was previously deleted in February 2019 per COM:CSD#F3. I don't remember what that particular file looked like, but I did tag it for speedy deletion for COM:Packaging reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Hi, I have nominated the file for deletion. This looks like a standard COM:PACKAGING violation. ✗plicit 13:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:BCCI Crest.svg

Hi Explicit. Do you think File:BCCI Crest.svg is OK as licensed? If it is, there’s no longer any need for en:File:Cricket India Crest.svg since they appear to be the same file. I’m asking first because the non-free one has been often re-added to the national team articles many times before despite it being originally removed via FFD. There would be no need for a non-free any longer if this is OK as licensed. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Hm, tough called. According to COM:TOO India, India's TOO is similar to the U.S., but the closest thing to the BCCI crest at COM:TOO US is File:JeetKuneDo.svg, which seems a bit less complex to me. It may be worth discussing at DR to see what others think. ✗plicit 09:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Explict. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor nominated this file for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:BCCI Crest.svg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Possible PD photo

Hi Explicit. Would you mind taking a look at this? If I'm missing something or have mistakenly given the wrong information, then feel free to correct me. In addition, if this would be better off discussed at COM:DR, then that's fine too. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of File:Localcongregation.jpg

I see you have deleted File:Localcongregation.jpg. I know it is better to be safe than sorry, but the image was from 2008 and the archive of the website you provided as a proof of copyvio does not go before 2012. How can you be sure it is copyvio? Veverve (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you feel there is something fishy with the uploads of this user, you should have a look at their other image I transferred here: File:Consecrationbishoptomas.jpg. Veverve (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: Hi, the resolution of the original image was 720 × 540, while the file from Wikipedia was 300 × 225. This indicates that the user-uploaded file was a reduced version of the original.
I did a cursory search for File:Consecrationbishoptomas.jpg shortly after deleting the above file, but I haven't come up with anything yet. ✗plicit 03:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mew Suppast TRESemme.jpg

Hi Explicit. Can File:Mew Suppast TRESemme.jpg be kept? Permission is given on Twitter under a CC-by-sa-4.0 license, but it seems like the copyright holder might mistakenly think this file is for Wikipedia use only. — Marchjuly (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Hi, the followup tweet should suffice. I don't think the wording of the first link restricts its use to Wikipedia. ✗plicit 00:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tarick Salmaci.jpg

Hi Explicit. It appears that User:Taricksalmaci is back again trying to upload this file. I left a message at User talk:TSalmaci to try and explain why they need to stop creating new accounts, but I'm not sure what effect it's going to have since messages haven't seemed to work before. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Hi, I've blocked the account for block evasion as a sockpuppet. Since Commons doesn't have a WP:CSD#G5, the uploaded file will just be deleted the standard route. ✗plicit 00:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understand. Thanks for looking into this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Explicit/Archive_2&oldid=656997256"