User talk:Yann

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from User talk:YannBot)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Bahasa Indonesia ∙ dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ euskara ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ Simple English ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ ქართული ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

/archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

God is busy, may I help you? / Dieu est occupé, puis-je vous aider?

You can leave me a message in English or French, at the bottom. Click here. Yann 22:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

DRs

Just to give one example, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by FrDr this image was taken on a private nature reserved owned by Natuurpunt, a non-private conservation organization that owns private conversation land. Which I was pretty clear about in the DR. The same for at least the next couple of images in it. They were all taken on private conversation land owned by Natuurpunt. I'm really getting sick of you targeting and harassing me. Are you just that petty that your going to continue coming after me 2 years later because of one incident? Adamant1 (talk) 10:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you see that the land is owned by Natuurpunt? This association manages the nature reserves, but I don't see evidence that it owns the land. That is usually not how it works. This kind of association works with public funds to manage publicly owned land. Please keep the discussion in one place. Yann (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind keeping the conversation about the DRs to the ANU complaint. I think that's tangential to you constantly going after me for no reason every time you get a chance though and I'd like it to be settled regardless of the ANU discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: Do not take this issue personally. I would answer the same to whoever create such DRs. Yann (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann, I noticed that Adamant1 has opened a whole series of similar DRs for tourist and nature reserve signs, always based on the same reasoning that there's no FOP for these kind of tourist signs (see : Category:Belgian FOP cases/pending) FrDr (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FrDr: Yes, I closed some of them. Could you add the {{FoP-Belgium}} to all images (you can do that with VFC, tell me if you need help)? Could you also answer about who owns the land where these pictures were taken? Are these places open to the public without any restriction? Yann (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: I don't know how VF works, help would be greatly appreciated. The outdoor signs of tourist attractions, monuments and nature reserves weren't taken on private land (which I wouldn't even have access to to take the pictures in the first place). kind regards FrDr (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that someone can't take pictures on private land is totally ridiculous and I've said a couple of times now at least a few of the signs clearly stated the nature reserves were privately owned by Natuurpunt. You can claim they aren't, but they clearly are and your word isn't valid evidence. At least not compared to an actual sign saying the nature reserve is private. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it probably doesn't matter who owns the land, as long as it is open to the public. Yann (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I explained that in the ANU complaint. "private" is just shorthand for "permanently accessible to the public" because access being restricted to private property is kind of inherent to the thing and I don't feel like writing a mini-essay about what exactly the terms "private" and "public" mean every time this comes up just because people like you want to be pedantic about it. But I will point out that in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Natuurpunt Smiley.toerist said museum's aren't sufficiently public enough because they have "controlled access" and then went on to describe private nature reserves in a way that clearly shows they control access to the public. So there isn't a legitimate argument that they are "permanently accessible to the public" enough to be public places for the purposes of FOP in Belgium. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FOP in Belgium applies to all places that are freely accessible for the public. Who owns a place is not relevant for the law. What is relevant is that anyone can freely enter without asking permissions, etc, which is the case. That a nature organisation places fences around an area is commonly to keep animals inside and to make sure humans only enter the area via the paths. As nature areas are sensitive to disturbance, access is commonly limited to pedestrians only. To enforce only pedestrians to enter, gates can be placed. (This is also the case at many public parks.) This however does not limit pedestrians from freely entering the area and nature areas are public places, falling under FOP.
The signs in question are commonly located at the edge of the nature areas and commonly can be photographed from the road. Also the areas of Natuurpunt fall under FOP as they are freely accessible and anyone who wants can freely enter the area without asking permission. Also signs inside the property can be freely photographed under FOP.
I also have to conclude that I see a pattern of abuse behaviour of the nominator. In earlier discussions it has been made clear to the nominator that the perspective regarding FOP the nominator describes is false, substantiated by experts, and even still continuing this behaviour of nominating images for deletion because of FOP, knowing that the images do fall under FOP. Romaine (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the perspective regarding FOP the nominator describes is false, substantiated by experts, and even still continuing this behaviour of nominating images for deletion because of FOP, knowing that the images do fall under FOP. @Romaine: Where exactly have "experts" substantiated that private nature reserves are covered by FOP in Belgium and were have I supposedly been "continuing the behavior" as your claiming? Because the last time I checked no one has cited any "expert" opinion about it in any of the DRs or anywhere else. At least not that I'm aware of. Nor have I continued to nominate images of private nature reserve in Belgium for deletion after those initial deletion requests that the discussion is about and I've pretty much dropped it since then. You and Yann are literally the only one's continuing to comment about it.
As a side that, I'll also point out that making up false accusations about other users is a form of personal attack, which you should be aware as an administrator. So I'd like an answer. Especially in regards to how I'm supposedly "continuing the behavior" (whatever your referring to). Since again, I'm not the the one continuing to bring this up or discuss it. Both you and Yann are the only one's who are. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Twain

Hm… ★ 01:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restorable? ★ 01:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ArionStar: Yes, it is a good candidate, but it requires a lot of work. The background looks like the Hubble Deep Field. “It is full of stars!” Yann (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did it! Thanks! ★ 11:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ArionStar: It is not complete yet. Yann (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arizona state seal.svg

Good day, thank you for your work. I have an issue with your undeletion of File:Arizona state seal.svg [1] - not so much the undeletion per se as the fact that the license claims seem to me dubious. Please see my comments at File talk:Arizona state seal.svg. Thank you for your attention. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Infrogmation: Hi,
Thanks for your message. Why do you think that Carl Lindberg's argument on [2] is not valid? The deletion request could eventually be reopened. Yann (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Reverse image searches shows multiple versions years earlier, same outline drawings with slightly different colors applied. So I do not see support for the supposition that Skunkcrew created the seal as own original image work based on text description. I am loathe to relist something that has been undeleted, but license claims seem to me a remaining problem that should be noted somehow. Perhaps more discussion on the image talk page? Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Infrogmation: This file seems to be a derivative work of File:State Seal of Arizona.svg, which first version was uploaded by Carl himself in 2011. Yann (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Infrogmation: I added the PD-USGov tag to it, since it's a copy of the federal government vector that I uploaded years ago, just with changed colors. It is unlikely the uploader gets a copyright on that color choice (particularly as he said he was being similar to the state website). Certainly not in the U.S., but in the rare chance that some other country has a low threshold of originality on color choice alone, *maybe* the CC0 may have relevance there. But I would not be opposed to removing it as being mostly misleading, and taking out the "own work", since it's really not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations

Hi there, I noticed this and I'm wondering how to tag copyright violations. Clearly this editor uploaded the photos from an online source. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: Hi, Well there is no evidence of that, that's the point. All the links are of smaller resolution and quality. In that case, a regular DR is better. Yann (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:D'Ieteren

Hello Yann, you deleted this category. I know that it was empty. Empty because User:Finoskov created the new Category:D'Ieteren Frères und moved all files into the new category. Instead of moving the old category to another name. So the history of the original category has gone. This is the usual way of Finoskov and I think that it is wrong. User:Túrelio is thinking the same, look at User talk:Túrelio#Category:Bugatti Type 101 s/n 101-501 and User talk:Túrelio#Category:Hispano-Suiza K6 Saoutchik. In the past there were some tries to explain the correct way to Finoskov: 2019, 2023 and 2024.
What can you do?

  1. For this category perhaps delete the new Category:D'Ieteren Frères, restore Category:D'Ieteren and move to Category:D'Ieteren Frères?
  2. General: try a fourth explanation in French to Finoskov?

Regards --Buch-t (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Buch-t: Hi,
I restored the category, and wrote a word to Finoskov. Yann (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that your words will be successful. --Buch-t (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

737-200fan

Could you please ask him to stop uploading logos without any categories or valid licensing? Trade (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: Links? Yann (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:737-200fan--Trade (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. @Trade: Next time, please report that to COM:ANU. Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a deeper problem. Feel free to drop by Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User_problems#Copyvio socks. DMacks (talk) 04:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renommage Berthe Morisot

Bonjour, et merci de votre réponse positive qui va dans le sens du respect dû à l'œuvre et à l'artiste Cordiales pensées Léah 30 (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Léah 30: Bonjour,
Je sais, pour avoir travaillé sur les oeuvres d'un peintre français, que c'est difficile de s'y retrouver quand le nom du fichier ne correspond pas au nom du tableau. Merci pour votre travail. Yann (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Désolée je n'y arrive pas ;) après avoir trouvé la licence en mode modifications, je remplace par crochet crochet PD-Art|PD-old-100-expired}} certes, mais après ? où mettre le titre exact ? si vous m'envoyez juste le lien d'une de vos pages Cézanne modifiée avec la démarche ça m'aiderait (je consulterai l'historique) merci ! Léah 30 (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merci de vos interventions auprès de Mdaniels ! j'ai trouvé une parade provisoire en modifiant la page principale du Catalogue raisonné : ajouter les titres exacts à côté des n° ; mais comment intervenir, auprès de qui, pour que les critères de renommage changent définitivement quand il s'agit d'œuvres artistiques, littéraires, universitaires industrielles ou artisanales ? dès lors qu'il y a dépôt de l'œuvre et reconnaissance de ce titre ? (je sais, on a osé renommé les Dix petits nègres hélas, mais c'est une autre histoire) Avancer que remettre une capitale à Valenciennes, que tout le monde écrit ainsi, n'est pas admis par les critères c'est vraiment excessif Léah 30 (talk) 08:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Léah 30: Comme ça : [3]. Yann (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merci cette manip c'est bon ; mais la suite ? je vois que vous avez fait des re-directions mais je ne sais pas faire ;) et pour le nouveau titre ? je re-demande des renommages ? merci, vraiment, de voler à mon secours ! Léah 30 (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour ! au musée de Bagnols sur Cèze on peut voir ce tableau du Port de Boulogne ; qui est en fait intitulé L'entrée du port, peint à... Fécamp (je me réfère au catalogue raisonné Bataille et Wildstein, qui fait autorité puisqu'établi sur les indications de Julie Manet la fille de l'artiste.

Bonsoir, j'essaie en vain de créer des redirections ; je sais faire en principe sur wikipedia mais pas ici ; je saisis qu'il faut ouvrir une nouvelle page et insérer le hastag rediriger (du wikicode) avec l'adresse de lla File à "récupérer" mais je ne sais pas ouvrir une nouvelle page ? merci merci de m'indiquer la démarche, l'aide ne m'aide... à rien Léah 30 (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Film CCBY-NC-ND

Hi Yann, perhaps you forgot... when reverting my action, could you please ping, or do a real revert, because I did only notice this by accident. Film is nominated for deletion by myself now. Ellywa (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ellywa: I didn't see the license in the film, only in the description, but you are right. File deleted. Yann (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ellywa (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I can't understand why I didn't see this wrong license. Guess I was fooled by the results of my search on YouTube. Apologies for the initial mistake. Vysotsky (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete File:Amazing stories cover 1932 vol 7 no 8.JPG so I can reupload

Hi, could you do a courtesy delete of the above file - there is info in the EXIF that I don't like. I have a new version waiting to remedy the situation. Thanks -- Deadstar (msg) 18:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Yann! I just also realised we already have this cover File:Amazing stories 193211.jpg, so won't bother with my version! Thanks again, -- Deadstar (msg) 19:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Featured photo nominations

Hi Yann,

I noticed you commented on two of my featured photo nominations calling for more information. I added the gallery categories and locations as you asked for. However, it seems that the edits that I made on the nomination page aren't showing up in the list of candidates. Do you know why? Daftation (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I realised you are talking about the file information rather than the nomination. I have edited that as well. Daftation (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FMC etc.

Hi, I'm trying to fix a lot of the mess on those pages now. Just letting you know so you don't have to jump in or help, that may create some edit conflicts before I'm done. ;-) --Cart (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FP?

Any chance? ★ 18:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, sorry. Ordinary people, not so old, average quality. Yann (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ueli Steck in Les Drus "North Couloir Direct" (VI, Al 6-, M8).webm

Hi Yann

I notice you uploaded a video which I was previously extracting images from (e.g. File:Ueli Steck Les Drus "North Couloir Direct" (VI, Al 6+, M8) 5 (cropped).png). I didn't know videos could be uploaded, and that they could be 'Featured'. There are at least two other videos in the Petzl climbing series that are also license free here and here, that might be worth uploading? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aszx5000: Ah yes, thanks a lot! Yann (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here they are: File:Flatanger - Daniel Woods and Dave Graham’s Return to sport climbing in Norway.webm, File:Ice climbing - The SITTA project outtakes.webm.
You can upload videos easily with Commons:video2commons. Yann (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great - thanks for that Yann. Aszx5000 (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strange behavior

Hey, can you check this file's history? I'm not certain what's happening there, but if I had to I would bet the account is compromised. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's just the usual copyright violations + advertisement... User warned, files deleted. Yann (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request

Dear Jann, please delete https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pneumia_nubila_(Meigen_1818)_%E2%99%82.jpg Thank you. Elena Regina (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pathé's Headquarters.jpg

Yes, it most certainly is a copyright violation. I posted the link to the Google Street View. You can even see the Google Earth logo prominently on the lower left. Schierbecker (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, right. Deleted. Yann (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Title of photo of the government office in The Hague housing the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security and Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations

Dear Yann, I saw that you had changed the title of my photo to File:Government office in The Hague housing the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security (2019).jpg. However, this is an incomplete title. In fact, they are two different ministries: the Ministry of Justice and Security and the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations. Could you change the title? Or else do you know a better title? Kind regards, S. Perquin (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@S. Perquin: Hi, You wrote that the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security is in the middle, so it is the main subject of the picture. Yann (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Yann, you're right about that! I hadn't thought about that yet! 😄 Thanks for the renaming! Kind regards, S. Perquin (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next 12 months

Maybe you'd want to add to Commons:Village_pump#Next_12_months_at_Commons. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for your opinion

Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gaza City, Palestine 2020.jpg, I will go by your opinion. Thanks, Krok6kola (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am resigned to the deletion, if that is what happens. No need to bother you about it. Krok6kola (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

.. for nominating my pictures on QIC ;-) Brackenheim (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gaza City, Palestine 2020.jpg

As you closed this DR on grounds that it was graffiti, I was wondering if you could comment on the concerns that it was a derivative work of the George Floyd selfie, which is a separate issue. IronGargoyle (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a borderline case, but I don't think that deleting this would protect anyone's copyright. Yann (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are his heirs not the copyright holders of the image? You say it is a borderline case (it seems a pretty clear derivative to me though). Does that not fall within COM:PRP then? IronGargoyle (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There could be several legal justifications for keeping this image, but I am mainly interested by the moral one. George Floyd selfie is only one possible source, or it could be just a portrait resembling him. One could also says that our image is not a direct derivative work, and that the artist had the right to use the image of George Floyd, whatever it was. As Giraudoux said There is no better way of exercising the imagination than the study of law. No poet ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer interprets the truth. Legal experts will find every possible reasons to keep or to delete it. But deleting this would be a terrible mistake, contrary to everything what Wikimedia stands for: knowledge, equity, truth, justice, etc. Yann (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide the legal justifications? I am troubled by your nod to "knowledge, equity, truth, justice" (mostly words that do not appear in the Wikimedia Foundation mission). It makes it appear that you more interested in advocating for a particular political agenda with your role of administrator than maintaining Commons as a source of freely licensed educational material. And how moral is it to deprive the Floyd heirs of their right to control the disposition of Floyd's creative work? IronGargoyle (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading your reply again, I think now the two sentences: "George Floyd selfie is only one possible source, or it could be just a portrait resembling him. One could also says that our image is not a direct derivative work, and that the artist had the right to use the image of George Floyd, whatever it was." is you legal justification right? I was too focused on your first statement about the importance of the moral argument. Let me talk through your legal argument then: If the work is derivative of something else, it is still likely a derivative work. Do we really think the Palestinian muralist met George Floyd in life? Or contacted the family of George Floyd to obtain permission? Both possibilities are very unlikely and that means this image falls afoul of COM:PRP. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware, yes. Some (including this one) are derivative of the famous George Floyd selfie. Not all of those should be deleted. Some of the derivative works are either de minimis or in jurisdictions which allow freedom of panorama for murals. This particular mural fits neither criteria. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just my opinion, but the mural and selfie look nothing like each other. The mural has more shading and they are from different angles. So I don't see how anyone could argue they are derivatives. Otherwise you'd have to argue any or all images of George Floyd are inherently copyrighted because you can't have an image of his face that doesn't somehow look similar to the selfie due to how generic it looks. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All moot

The photograph itself was a Flickrwashed blatant copyright violation of a photograph by Mohammed Salem/REUTERS. See https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/10/israel-hamas-war-black-struggle.html. I have deleted it as such. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine. I updated the deletion request. Yann (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:The Wildcat (1921) by Ernst Lubitsch.webm

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:The Wildcat (1921) by Ernst Lubitsch.webm. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:The Wildcat (1921) by Ernst Lubitsch.webm]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Prototyperspective (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: Hi, This is a 1921 film, and the author died in 1947, so it is in the public domain in Germany and in USA. Yann (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, aware of that but if you play the actual file, you'll see that it's actually a recently-made documentary video about the film, not the film itself. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OOPS. Deleted. Thanks for looking. Yann (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old Ironsides

Can you undelete File:Old Ironsides (1926).webm today just so I can investigate the cause of the issue? I don't have the local file anymore, and I'd at least like some access. The issue has to do with the fact that certain video files are very much not empty, but that Commons incorrectly says that they are "0 bytes", and therefore the video player doesn't work properly with them. (The video will still play, but you can't go backwards or forwards.) I wonder if this is similar to a common issue with PDFs that often causes them to register as "0 bytes" as well, which purging the cache enough times helps fix.

Plus, I am going to upload a new version in its place tomorrow anyway so please undelete so I can investigate. SnowyCinema (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowyCinema: Hi,
This file has 0 pixel and 0 byte. I will also upload a HR version soon (1080p). Do you really need this file? Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same HD version locally, so I could upload it too, if you undelete this file I'd like it in the revision history, so I can see exactly what happened, thanks. (What I want to do is to make a Bot proposal to fix every file like this because there are actually not a few.) SnowyCinema (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowyCinema: Ok, done. Yann (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue seems to be that the metadata (text data about the video) is either missing, corrupted, or not being properly read by Commons. It therefore isn't reading the bit rate, since the bit rate is specified in this metadata apparently. But the video itself seems okay. It even plays correctly unlike what I originally thought... SnowyCinema (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bot mistake

Maybe you may help me, following the deletion of duplicate (thank you) of a very low quality of a file this revision was made by mistake and should be undid; it was not supposed to be removed by the bot following the renaming file after... Smart Consumers Shop Consumers (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file is my own work , I am copyright of my own work--Smart Consumers Shop Consumers (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smart Consumers Shop Consumers: Hi,
For any work previously published elsewhere, a formal written permission is needed, unless the work is in the public domain. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dalvago

Yann, you've already warned this user about copyright violations but they have recently uploaded an image that I believe was already declared a copyright violation. I think File:Black Electric Buffalo Records logo.png is the same as the deleted file File:EBR logo black.png. Can you check please? Thank you. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week, file deleted. Thanks for noticing. Yann (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yann&oldid=875523451"