This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The photographer (Frigyes Schoch) took the photo in 1903 (the same year statue was mounted) and died in 1924. As such, Schoch's rights to the photograph expired 70 years later. The statue itself, however, was sculpted by Miklós Ligeti, who retained the copyright. By my reading, Schoch had no legal right to sell his photograph of a copyrighted sculpture. Miklós Ligeti died in 1944, so it only became Public Domain this year. So it makes sense to leave both dates/templates on the photo. I'm not sure what better solution there is, but if we need to have only one template, we should leave the 1944, because that's when the photo became truly Public Domain. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Thanks for explaining, I was unfamiliar with the statue and don't read Hungarian, though I did just read over a lousy translation of the article. From what Fortepan says, though, it seems the photo was actually taken (or at least published) in 1907... I'm not saying that's right, just what they indicate. Given the confusing situation, I used {{Infosplit}} to (hopefully) make the file pages clearer. Feel free to let me know (or just fix it) if you don't think this an improvement. Revent (talk) 08:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm the original poster of the file "TouchDevelop Homepage.jpg", which I noticed you just deleted under CSD. TouchDevelop is free software released under the MIT licence on GitHub, and as such surely such an image could not be a violation of copyright? I have reached out to Microsoft to see if they can clarify the situation, but even without having done so, could you please clarify the rationale for deletion? I understand that there is a "Copyright Microsoft 2015" in the footer, however I believe that refers solely to the Microsoft-specific properties contained on the page, for instance Microsoft logos, and not the page in and of itself - otherwise it would presumably not be open source. I have a local install of TouchDevelop on my computer, if I was to take a screenshot of that would it be acceptable?
@Naypta: I just left a comment on your talk. Even if you are correct about the design of the page itself, the inclusion of the 'Microsoft-specific properties' means that the page, and the screenshot, is a derivative work of those copyrighted logos, and so isn't allowed. I would presume, however, that a screenshot of your local installation would only include material that was generated by the MIT-licensed code itself, and if that is the case it would be perfectly fine. Revent (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Will you please undelete the work File:Bankim chandra chatterjee.jpg as the work would appear to be out of copyright. If you believe that a work (that was uploaded FIVE years ago) has been wrongfully uploaded or its status is unclear then the correct process is to take something via a deletion process.The edit history on the file by so many admins should be evident that they have not had concerns to nominate it for deletion, and for you to delete it outright is not the correct process. It is not appropriate for you to not allow the community to have an opinion and for you to make such a contentious deletion. For your information, the person whose image it was died in 1894 s:Author:Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay. Thanks. I look forward to a quick fix so that I can undo the damage at enWS. — billinghurstsDrewth13:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
billinghurst Ok, all usages are back from the delinker log, and checked against the Google cached copy of the file page. For what it was worth, that was a very dumb error on my part. There were several images in a row by the same uploader that were marked as copyright violations, 'own work' uploads that were watermarked images that had existed on the source website (per wayback) for years before their upload to Commons. When I looked at the uploader's history, I saw that about a dozen or so other images from the same source had been deleted as copyvios years ago... I assume that the rest that I had not specifically looked at where the same. I'm going through and double checking them all to make certain... FWIW this is the only time I've done a 'group' deletion like this, and now I know better. My apologies. Revent (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response and quick action, it is appreciated. I know that it is not an easy job at Commons, and one where there is always a new twist and a new quirk, and some where a wrong decision can have broader consequences. I thank you for stepping up to help. — billinghurstsDrewth01:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Ugh and agh, I have just seen the other discussion. Please accept my apologies for that blowing up like that. I am not and will not do blame for the matter, I understand that mistakes are made, and the complexity of the role, and was happy to work with you quietly to reolve. The other discussion is more an alert to all admins about approach and that we all share the responsibility to be curators for all WMF wikis, not Commons coloured rose glasses. Again my apologies for any highlight that came your way, definitely not my intention. — billinghurstsDrewth01:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
billinghurst I have no complaint... you did not point at me, it was an expression of a broader concern, given specific instance. I understand expressing yourself in such a way... assuming that I understand your intent, I tend to do the same thing as well sometimes. I have no problem admitting when I make a mistake, or taking effort to fix it.. all things are fixable, it's when the person it unwilling to admit it, to repair it, or to discuss the matter civilly that there are problems. For what it is worth, if you see me make an obvious mistake like that (and you are indeed correct, when looked at in particular it was obvious) feel free to correct it and then let me know... not that doing so would excuse me from the responsibility to track down any results of the mistake, but if I do something dumb I'm not going to act 'proud' about it and try to argue just to try to win something. That's not why we are here. Revent (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Look2See1
Since you recently participated in a discussion related to User:Look2See1's actions, it would help if you participated in discussion at the "Look2See1" section of COM:AN/U. Nyttend (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't bother; the first response was by an admin who's blocked Look2See1 for one month, so further input won't affect anything. Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Was not active for a day or two, so just noticing now, but no particular complaint... the only complaints about my removing autopatrolled were that it wasn't harsh enough, really, but I thought it made sense to flag him for patrol so more people would be looking, to see if his actions got a broader base of objections. I guess they did. What I noticed, in patrolling a few hundred of his edits, is that L2S typically makes a lot of mistakes, sometimes editing the same page two or three times to make what should reasonably be one edit. Most of what he does is reasonable, but he seems to insist on 'strange' formatting, and linking to categories in descriptions, despite the same categories being linked by interwikis. They are the types of things that most editors would change as an 'obvious error' as noticed, even if not explicitly against policy, yet L2S seems to insist on them. Revent (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
File:Livingston-Island-Map-2010.jpg
Dear Revent, many thanks for your explanation and instructions; the OTRS pending template has been placed as suggested. Best, Apcbg (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear Revent, you wrote on my talk page: "Once it's marked as OTRS pending, ping me and I will restore the usages (adding the template is one of those things that should be done by the person with personal knowledge, for the record)."
Well, the file has already got its OTRS confirmation, and I would very much appreciate it if you could restore the usages indeed. Best, Apcbg (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Apcbg: Given the number of uses (hundreds, literally) it's going to take me a bit to have the time to sit down and sort it... I had not looked at the number and realized how long it would take to deal with. Restoring them is pretty 'mechanical', but not 'automatic' unfortunately. I'll try to get it done over the next day or so. Revent (talk) 04:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Dear Revent, many thanks for the restored usages! I wonder if it's all of them actually. If I am not wrong, presently the File usage on other wikis for the file Livingston-Island-Map-2010.jpg lists 436 entries. In particular, English Wikipedia is totally missing, although the history of articles on my watchlist there shows 753 usages deleted by Filedelinkerbot and not restored so far. Is it possible to check if the former overall number of usages matches the present one? Best, Apcbg (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Apcbg: Ah, derp, forgot about the other bot (I only undid the ones CommonsDelinker did). I'll get the ones for the other bot when I have a moment, probably later today. Revent (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Apcbg Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, I was not wanting to sit down to this until I had the time to try to do it all at once, so as to not miss any. I see you did nearly all yourself manually (cringe), I ran through them and caught a couple you had missed.
Again, sorry for the hassle about this... I hope you understand, we really want to protect copyrights if at all possible. You have the OTRS filed now, so if you upload other images from the Foundation you can just add the same OTRS ticket number and avoid things like this. Revent (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Dear Revent, thank you so much for your expert contribution to restoring all the usages, and indeed for your advice on possible future uploads of images from the Foundation. Best, Apcbg (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Duplicates (thanks)
INeverCryHedwig in Washington In case you thought is was odd (or even noticed it was me) that I had flagged a couple of dozen duplicates (the photochrom images) instead of zapping them myself, I was hoping for a bit of 'feedback' from some other people about that what I felt was pretty obvious was as non-controversial as I thought, since they were 'old' and not technically exact given the white matting. I've been working on cleaning up this collection (there are several thousand of them) and didn't feel comfortable doing it 'en masse' without a second opinion or two. FYI, the Photochroms have been uploaded in several different sets over the years, by various people and from various sources, and we now have the 'high resolution' ones from the LoC thanks to Fae, so it seemed worth giving the collection some 'manual' TLC. No response needed, just thought I'd drop a note. Revent (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
"denigrating other people's level of knowledge, or dismissing their concerns"
Like: "me suspect you don't know what you doing" "I refuse to learn something new today" "have a grown-up discussion"??
Yeah, that was not me, but I the not civil one here, right?
And to you came just, and only, on my page I think that is one of the situations of bias... No note here or here.
More when one person say something like: "I will not waste more time on this", this is not a clear "I do not want to discuss about it"? A "civil" person avoid insisting on the topic.
Last thing:
Baby talk about colour-profile again... I brought back the metadata, as you can see on the File page (how about the next time you do that, it takes the same time as to come here to cry for it). I should let it in that away, because it's a bad photo, if several mistakes, but your only reason to you say no is the colour-profile... for God's sake.
I'll assume "revert" as "fix", to not be more disappointed...
This was about the photo
All the rest, so Colin and Slauger talk, is not related.
So next time that you want to give a some civilizatory speech, you should at least think about it, and write a flawless one, because you can feel that you superior enough to give this "tips", however you not even able to analyse correctly the situation.
@Rodrigo.Argenton: I addressed my comment to you because you were the person that I saw initially heating up the conversation, in both threads. You should take it as a mild criticism that you might want to tone down your level of rhetoric if you do not want to get antagonized responses. I don't know about the past history between you, and honestly do not care. The way you have responded to me rather makes my point. If you choose to ignore it, that is up to you. Revent (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello. As you have seen, there is that issue going on, on that map page. You locked the page. But, would you be kind enough to put the image that was up there before Ceha wanted to change it? This image which was put up is the original image, the one that has been there for so long. And up along Ceha comes and wants to over-write the map (although the copyright does not allow that), with something which he made which is completely different? That's not proper I think. He could have easily uploaded his own version somewhere if he wanted to. Instead he dogmatically insists on over-writing this other image. I think that's troubling... so if you can please consider to restore the original image which I have been trying to protect, I would really appreciate it.
Also, I am wondering if you have any advice as to what to do to get this thing solved? I may be wrong, but from what I see it is difficult to communicate with this guy. I say one thing, he goes off on something completely different. I feel like we have a communication barrier or something. (Lilic (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)).
@Lilic: I agree, of course, that whatever the original version was should not have been overwritten with a substantially different image, and if I had any real 'objective' idea of what the last consensus version was then I would put it back. That file has, however, been overwritten nearly 40(!!!!!) times now, by various people. I have no idea what the 'right' version is, and any version that I put on top would be meta:The Wrong Version, as I stated at AN/U. The only thing for which I see an obvious, clear consensus (that would not be a matter of picking one side or the other) is that the edit warring should stop, and that it is appropriate to use 'technical means' (page protection, or blocks) to make that happen. There is no reason to not have multiple versions of the map, and let the local wikis decide which one they want to use. I am not personally, however, going to get involved in trying to determine what is 'correct' in regard to a map that I can't even read. It is not appropriate for Commons to mandate such content decisions to local wikis by keeping only a single version of a disputed file.
I suggest that you seek outside opinions, though either a COM:RFC or by posts to the appropriate-language Village Pumps. Once a consensus among interested editors about which version should be at this location, and what version should be somewhere else, then an admin can be asked to make the needed changes according to that consensus. Any admin who gets involved in the actual dispute, however, should not do so.
Alternatively, you can upload your preferred version under a slightly different filename, and then engage with the various local wikis about which version they want to use. Such a local content debate is outside the scope of Commons. Revent (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you think it might be possible to get this file deleted and then to get the original file correctly transferred from the serbian wikipedia, which is where it came from? And if so, what would the procedure be to do that? (Lilic (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)). Also, totally unrelated, but maybe you can help with an image move/rename? [1] (Lilic (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)).
@Lilic: It would indeed be possible, but there is not a specific 'process' for asking for it to be done, other than getting a consensus that it's what would be appropriate. I would, honestly, be willing to simply split the file into the separate versions, but with so many overwrites, and the fact that I can't read whichever language that it's written in, I don't feel competent to do so. Really, you need to open this up to a wider venue like the VP.
Thank you for the file change!
As for the main issue - I submitted a request for comment, so I'll see what happens from there on out. I hope something good comes from it, got to be hopeful! In general I like your idea of splitting the file, or something which involves deleting the current messed up one. (Lilic (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)).
Attending Wikimania 2015 in Mexico City right now, meeting awesome people that already use or want to know everything about Wikidata.
After the next deployment, redirects will be automatically created when merging items.
Special:UnconnectedPages can now be queried via the query API, thanks to Ladsgroup.
Migrating away from an older serializer to the DataModel Serialization component.
Worked on a new time parser that can parse formats like M/D/Y, Y M D and so on.
Fixed a bug where a value could not be edited when save failed.
Made the snak type, badge and rank selectors position themselves after resizing the browser window and introduced a possibility to collapse the sitelinks sections.
Worked on a change in editing to be able to edit a statement and it’s references in one step.
Made some small changes to the style of the edit warning and sitelinks so they are easier to notice and understand
Added error messages for Special:GoToLinkedPage and Special:ItemByTitle so you get a useful message in case no result is found
The Entity Selector now displays alias in brackets behind label
The number of entities loaded via the {{#property:…}} parser function and via Lua will be reported in the “Parser profiling data” (which can be found below a page preview or within the Html of a page)
Prepared for next rounds of arbitrary access rollout
Investigated growing lag of dispatching of changes to Wikipedia and co. We'll need to investigate further and change things so the lag between an edit on Wikidata and it being send to the Wikipedias and other projects is not too high.
Added the property ID to Special:ListProperties
Moved two extensions (Wikidata.org and WikimediaBadges) from Github to Gerrit. More will follow.
You have a bunch of names etc. and want to find Wikidata items with those labels/aliases? Try relabel!
SourcererBot is adding lots of references to existing statements on several thousand items.
Mix-n-Match has new catalogs including the National Library of Australia.
Deaths at Wikipedia are a series of reports comparing items at Wikidata with death-by-year-categories of Wikipedia. For the years since 2000, only about 15% of items at Wikidata lack d:Property:P570 (date of death).
Soon the edit summary for edits through the API will also contain the automatic edit summary that you are used to for edits done through the website. The summary given by the API user will be appended to the automatic summary. (phabricator:T97247)
Addressed performance issues in usage tracking updates and had to delay the latest round of rollouts because of it
Fixed a bug where suggestions would show up twice in item and property selectors (phabricator:T109697)
Improved performance of the mw.wikibase.sitelink Lua method
Made final changes so we can redirect mobile users to the mobile version by default
Evaluated the remaining steps to get the extension deployed that lets you do checks against 3rd party databases. Not much left it seems and we'll tackle that in one of the next sprints. Getting the new features deployed for the constraints checks will still take a bit longer.
More work on making the edit summaries in the watchlist on Wikipedia and co more meaningful
Optimized Wikidata for viewing on mobile devices. You will be redirected to m.wikidata.org automatically when using a mobile device soon the same way it already happens on Wikipedia. (Editing will only be possible via the special pages!)
API custom summary will no longer override the autocomment (phabricator:T97247)
Paging and sorting has been added to Special:ListProperties and it now also shows the IDs of the properties
Worked more on making the edit summaries on the client more meaningful and readable
Introduced a limit of 250 different entities that can be used on a page in the client via arbitrary access. The limit does not apply to convenience functions in lua, such as mw.wikibase.label which use a TermLookup instead of loading a full entity to get labels. (phabricator:T93885)
Stalagmites and stalactites visualizes items without statements, items with statements, and deleted/redirected items by batches of 100,000 QIDs
Mix n Match is now available for mobile, has an improved automatic matching algorithm, got speed improvements and new catalogs were added like the National Gallery of Victoria, World Heritage Sites and CulturaItalia
Matched birth and death days seeks to investigate all pairs of humans (in various subsets) that appear to have the same birth dates and death dates. De-duplication underway!
You can now use the new special page Special:PagesWithBadges to see which articles on that project have a badge like "featured article".
Release of the query service and unit support (see above)
Made quantities not show URIs when editing a value but instead show the label
Worked on new datatype for identifiers to be able to split them from the other statements in the user interface, link them without the need for the authority control gadget and be able to link them in JSON/RDF
Worked more on making the edit summaries in the watchlist on Wikipedia and co more meaningful
A follow-up to the Wikidata for research proposal has begun to be drafted by the University of Haifa and the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin
Community page for the new SPARQL query service, including a subpage for interesting or illustrative queries, and a board for suggestions and discussions.
Done - All usages on all wikis should be back (nearly 500, sigh). Revent (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
